9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the hands of the assessee for Rs. 4,50,000/- and Rs. 2,50,000/- which is actually the gift received from his father and brother respectively invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act. (ii) The Ld.CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the Ld. AO who had made addition in the hands of the assessee for Rs. 3 lakhs which is actually the unsecured loan received from Smt. B. Nirmala invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged as an agriculturist and also in the business of trading in mangoes, filed his return of income for the AY 2012-13 on 26/8/2013 declaring an income of Rs. 5,75,240/- and agricultural income of Rs. 3,49,500/-. Thereafter the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nable to furnish the details of the factory where they had sold the sugarcane. (ii) From the Ration card of the assessee's father bearing No. WAP105101800224, BPL (white) category; it was apparent that the assessee's father belongs to below poverty line and of lowest economic strata. (iii) Though the assessee's father was holding a bank account the gift given to his son was by cash and not through cheque. (iv) The source of the gift from the assessee's brother was also stated to be from the agricultural income earned out of his 5.11 (approx) acres of Agricultural Land. In the case of the brother it was observed that he was earning Rs. 80,000/- per Acre however, his father was earning only Rs. 40,000/- per acre which does not appear to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observation to hold that the quantum of savings of the assessee's father and brother cannot be relied upon is not appropriate. Considering the extent of land owned by the assessee's father and brother, their creditworthiness for accumulating the fund of Rs. 4,50,000/- and Rs. 2,50,000/- respectively cannot be doubted and can be treated as reasonable. Further, the assessee's father and brother have also confirmed the transaction by furnishing their confirmation statements. In this situation, the addition made in the hands of the assessee for Rs. 4,50,000/- and Rs. 2,50,000/- being the gift received from his father and brother is not justifiable. Therefore, I hereby set aside the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and further direct the Ld. AO to dele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be received from Smt. B. Nirmala as loan. 8. At the outset, I do not find merit in the order of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. From the facts of the case it is apparent that Smt. B. Nirmala is engaged in the activity of running a small shop. Therefore, she has some source of income. Further, possessing ration card of low economic strata does not categorically prove that the assessee does not have any resources to earn reasonable income or financially unsound. Moreover, apparently the entire transactions are made through the banking channel. Accumulating an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs by an individual engaged in a small business activity is not an unrealistic factor. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
