TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in order to arrive at a conclusion. AO has just brushed aside these evidences without even a word on why they are not acceptable. It is a well settled Law that when an assessee has all the possible evidence in support of its claim, they cannot be brushed aside based on surmises. Therefore, based on this factual position we delete the addition made by the assessing officer. Thus, ground no.1 raised by the assessee is allowed. Addition u/s 68 - maturity proceeds of FDRs, alleging unexplained cash credits - HELD THAT:- Learned Counsel submits that aforesaid FDRs at Sr. Nos. 1 to 4 were made by the assessee, his wife and the brother of the assessee before the commencement of the current assessment year i.e. well before 01-04- 2007 and thus, these FRD were not made during the assessment year under consideration. In this regard, assessee submits a copy of the bank certificates issued by the Dena Bank evidencing the fact that the said FDRs were not made during the current year but were made in the earlier years. Since the investments in the FDRs were not made during the year under consideration, the question of taxing the same alleging it as unexplained cash credit does not aris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... needs to be deleted in the interest of natural justice and equity. 3. On facts and circumstance of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming an addition of ₹ 3,00,000/- in respect of investments made in mutual funds alleging unexplained investments, which is absolutely erroneous and bad-in-law and needs to be deleted in the interest of natural justice and equity. 4. The assessee craves to add, amend, alter, substitute, modify the above ground of appeal, if necessary, on the basis of submissions to be made at the time of personal hearing. 3. Ground no.1 raised by the assessee relates to addition made by the Assessing Officer to the tune of ₹ 19,28,000/-, u/s 69 of the Act in respect of the deposits made in the regular bank account of the brother of the assessee who is separately assessed to tax. 4. Brief facts of the issue in dispute are stated as under. The assessee before us is an Individual and derives income from share of profit from partnership firm, house property and interest on fixed deposits. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny on the basis of A.I.R information, that is, the assessee has deposited cash, more t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited in the bank account. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 7. We note that in respect of cash deposits in the same bank account pertaining to A.Y. 2007-08, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the file of AO with the specific directions to examine the pay in slips signed by the persons who deposited cash amounts in the bank account and ascertain the ownership of money. However, for assessment year 2008-09, the facts are different. Learned Counsel submits that bank account no.743010007771 with Bank of Baroda belongs to the brother of the assessee viz. Shri Mohammad Rafiq Abdul Rashid and his mother Nasimabanu Abdul Rashid Shaikh are only the joint holder of the Account. It was also submitted that all the entries in the said bank account have been duly accounted for in the regular books of accounts of Shri Mohammad Rafiq Abdul Rashid, the brother of the assessee and hence, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee also filed an aff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee which were stated during assessment proceedings. On appeal, ld CIT(A) confirmed the action of the assessing officer. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. On the other hand, Learned Counsel relied on the submissions made before the ld. CIT(A). 10. We note that during the course of the assessment proceedings, an addition of ₹ 7,93,390/- was made in respect of maturity of FDRs belonging to the wife and brother of the assessee as also cash deposits made by the assessee, alleging unexplained investments u/s 69 of the Act. Learned Counsel submits before us that maturity proceeds of the impugned FDRs were credited in the bank account of the assessee with Dena Bank since along with the assessee and the brother of the assessee is also a joint holder in the said savings bank account. The detail of the maturity of FDRs is given in the following table. Sr. No. Date/Year of Deposit Date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 3,00,000/-. The subject amount of Investment of ₹ 3,00,000/- was made by the assessee in the Reliance mutual fund the detail and the source thereof, as explained to the Income tax officer is given in the following table: St. No. Amount (Rs.) Date of Investment as per MF Statement Bank Account from where the investment made 1 1,50,000 08-08-2007 Bank of Baroda SB account no. SB-122 (07430100017771) belonging to the brother of the assessee Md. Rafiq Abdul Rashid Shaikh on 16-07-2007 and reflected in his books of accounts. 2 1,50,000 25-02-2008 Dena Bank SB account no. 25019 belonging to the assessee on 13-02-2008 and reflected in the books of account of the assessee. 3,00,000 Total The ld Counsel submits that Investments in mutual funds of ₹ 1,50,000/- each vide account Nos. 42652075101 and 42677326502 belonging to the assessee and his bro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
