9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 786X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO for Rs. 12,50,000/- invoking the provisions of section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in real estate and construction business and also earning agricultural income. A survey action U/s. 133A of the Act was carried out in the business premises of M/s. KSR Constructions on 29/10/2010 wherein the assessee's spouse Sri K. Kondal Rao is a partner. During the course of survey proceedings it was noticed from the materials seized and marked as A/KSR/1 page No.53 to 62 that Smt. K. Ashwini, the assessee, has invested an amount of Rs. 12,50,000/- in the purchase of 9.20 acres of agricultural land situated at Kandhi Vil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Hyderabad; and b. D.D. bearing No. 163033, dated 19/04/2008 obtained from The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd, Hyderabad. As regards sources are concerned, the D.D for Rs. 10,00,000/- was obtained out of Rs. 30,00,000/- cash withdrawn by me from my Axis Bank account on 19/04/2008. As regards the balance amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- the same was obtained out of withdrawal by Sri Ranjit from Dhanalakshmi Bank account which was credited to my account; and was gifted by me to my wife." 5. The ld. CIT (A) thereafter called for a remand report from the Ld. AO and after examining the facts of the case, the remand report of the Ld.AO and the particulars filed by the assessee he came to the conclusion that the source of funds utilised by the assessee for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the hands of the assessee as unexplained investment. It was further submitted that the assessee did not have any proximity with the firm in which the assessee's spouse is a partner and the assessee's spouse had withdrawn the money from the firm and gifted it to the assessee for purchase of the land. It was therefore pleaded that the addition made by the Ld. AO which was further confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous and hence it may be deleted. The Ld. DR on the other hand vehemently argued in support of the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. 7. I have heard the rival submission and carefully perused the materials on record. From the facts of the case it is not in dispute that the source of the fund invested by the assessee has flow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see from her spouse. Therefore, I hereby direct the Ld. AO to delete the addition made in the hands of the assessee for Rs. 12,50,000/- invoking the provisions of section 69 of the Act which is further confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A). 8. Before parting, it is worthwhile to mention that this order is pronounced after 90 days of hearing the appeal, which is though against the usual norms, I find it appropriate, taking into consideration of the extra-ordinary situation in the light of the lock-down due to Covid-19 pandemic. While doing so, I have relied in the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. JSW Ltd. In ITA No.6264/M/2018 and 6103/M/2018 for AY 2013-14 order dated 14th May 2020. 9. In the result, appeal of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
