9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dhury, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri Dulal Chandra Mondal Ld Departmental Representative represented on behalf of Revenue. 2. Facts in brief are that assessee in the present case is an individual and derives his income from source of salary. The assessee for the year under consideration has filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 5,85,470/-. Thereafter case was selected under scrutiny on the basis of AIR and consequently notice u/s. 143(2) was served upon assessee. The assessment was framed u/s. 144 of the Act at a total income of Rs.13,60,430/- after treating the investment with Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd. (RECL for short) for Rs. 9 lakh to the total income of assessee. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that none of the person who claimed to have made the investment was the man of means for such huge investment. Accordingly, after considering the submission of assessee granted partly relief to assessee by observing as under:- "...Under the facts and the circumstances of the case, the creditworthiness of Sri Swapan Kumar Dutta dnd Smt. Urnima De are not acceptable. Creditworthiness of Smt. Angur Bala De, to the extent of cash deposited in her account, is also not acceptable. As the appellant has actively facilitated the investments made in mutual fund units by giving his PAN and also providing logistical support. It is possible that he has routed his own undisclosed money through his relatives in the garb of investment in mutual fund." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pted by the CIT(A) that the amount was accumulated over a period of time and the same could not be the fund of the assessee. 6. For that the order of the CIT(A) is perverse and erroneous in as such as none of the facts has been appreciated and even making false aspersions as of the fact that PAN numbers were obtained subsequent to the investment. 7. For that the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts to hold that the creditworthiness of the assessee in making investment was not proved and also erred in law not to appreciate the fact that since there was no amount credited in the books f the assessee creditworthiness under no circumstances, had to be proved by the assessee. the assessee has given all the relevant details and creditworthiness, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvestments, he is just second holder of investments. His name was given as second holder so that in the event of any mishappening to the first holder the money can be kept safe. Ld. AR in support of his claim submitted the copies of investment where his name was shown as second holder of the investment. Ld. AR further submitted the copies of bank statements which are placed on pages 37 to 41 of the paper book and stated that reasonable opportunity was not provided by AO at the time of assessment proceedings. Ld. AR also submitted that addition sustained in the hands of assessee on surmise and conjecture by Ld. CIT(A) which cannot hold in the eyes of law. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that information was gathered through AIR and the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur considered view, the addition cannot sustain on the basis of his surmise and conjecture. Moreover, the parties have given their affidavits and bank statements to justify the source of investment. In this connection, we rely in the case of ITO V. Praveen Ramkrishna Upganlawar (2005) 142 taxman 76 (Nagpur) (MAG) and relevant extract is reproduced below: "7.Under section 69, if the assessee has made any investment which is not recorded in the books of account and no explanation is offered about the nature and source of investment, the value of the investment may be deemed to be the income of the assessee. Under section 69A, if an assessee is found to be the owner of money, bullion, etc. and if the assessee offers no explanation about the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In view of the above cited case laws, we find that the addition made by Assessing Officer and subsequently sustained by Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable in the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances of case law (supra). The ld. CIT-A in the instant case has not formed any firmed opinion that it was the assessee money invested in the mutual fund through his relatives. The ld. CIT-A has just sustained the addition on the possibility of assessee money used in the impugned investment. In our view the addition cannot sustain on the basis of surmise & conjecture. Hence, we reverse the order of Ld. CIT(A) and this ground of assessee's appeal is allowed. 6. Remaining grounds No.10 & 11 are general in nature and do not require any adjudication. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
