Ram Balaprasad Zanwar, Aurangabad V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - Parbhani, Parbhani

ITA 447/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7242 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 11-09-2018
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 09-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAMOD JADHAV
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Source of fund
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, PUNE , , , BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO . 447 /P U N/201 8 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 4 - 15 MR. RAM BALAPRASAD ZANWAR, R. H. NO. B - 2, CHOUDHARY THAKKAR, PRIDE, BEHIND SAI VRUNDAWAN COLONY, PAITHAN ROAD, ITHEDA, AURANGABAD 431001 PAN : AACCP7967Q ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PARBHANI / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRAMOD JADHAV REVENUE BY : SHRI M.K. VERMA / DATE OF HEARING : 2 3 - 01 - 2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 - 0 4 - 201 9 / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : TH IS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1, AURANGABAD DATED 08 - 01 - 2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15. 2 ITA NO . 447/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2014 - 15 2 . THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECORDS ARE: THE ASSESSEE IS A SALARIED EMPLOYEE. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ON 27 - 03 - 2015 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,53,230/ - . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS . IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D PURCHASED A ROW HOUSE NO. B - 2 AT CHOUDHARY THAKKAR PRIDE SITUATED AT GUT NO. 83, ITKHEDA, AURANGABAD FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.60,00,000/ - . THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE AFORESAID HOUSE. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE FOR MAKING INVESTMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF AFORESAID PROPERTY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CONVINCED WIT H THE EXPLANATION FURNISH ED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,52,676/ - . THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF THE AFORESAID AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18 - 10 - 2016 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPE AL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). HOWEVER, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS ALSO NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE FINDINGS OF COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE SOLITARY GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS : 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE A DDITION OF RS.2,52,676/ - U/S. 69 OF THE ACT MADE BY THE LEARNED AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS. 3 ITA NO . 447/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2014 - 15 3. SHRI PRAMOD JADHAV APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS FOR PURCHASE OF HOUSE. TO FUND THE INVESTMENT OF RS.60,00,000/ - , THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED LOAN OF RS.47,00,000/ - FROM STATE BANK OF INDIA, RS.25,000/ - WAS PAID IN CASH FROM OWN SAVINGS, RS.10,50,000/ - WAS PA ID THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE AND RS.2,25,000/ - WAS PAID BY HIS BROTHER WHO IS WORKING IN SINGAPORE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED BANK DETAILS OF HIS BROTHER TO SHOW THAT CASH WITHDRAWALS WERE MADE BY HIS BROTHER FOR MAKING PAYMENT TO ASSESSEE ON VARIOUS DATE S. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND SHRI M.K. VERMA REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT VEHEMEN TLY DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND PRAYED FOR DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. 5. W E HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE SOLITARY ISSUE IN APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.2,52,676/ - IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS IN HOUSE. THE ASSESSEE IS A SALARIED EMPLOYEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE HOUSE WITH HIS SAVI NGS , LOAN FROM THE BANK AND UNSECURED LOANS FROM VARIOUS PERSONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS PURPORTEDLY TAKEN CASH FROM HIS BROTHER ON VARIOUS DATES FOR PURCHASE OF HOUSE. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE DISBELIEVED FUNDING OF RS.97,676/ - BY THE BROTHER OF ASSESSEE. THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE IS NRI AND IS WORKING IN SINGAPORE. THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE DEPARTMENT . THUS, THE BROTHER OF ASSESSEE MUST BE MAN OF MEANS TO AT LEAST FUND RS.1,00,000/ - APPROX. HAVING ACCEPTED 95% OF THE TOTAL SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR PURCHASE OF HOUSE, WE FIND NO REASON TO DOUBT THE SOURCE OF REMAINING 4 ITA NO . 447/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2014 - 15 5% FUNDS GATHERED BY ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF HOUSE. THE EXPLANATION /SOURCE OF RS.2,52,676/ - FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO BE GENUINE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS S ET ASIDE AND THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 18 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019. SD/ - SD/ - ( / ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ( / VIKAS AWASTHY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 18 TH APRIL, 2019. RK / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 1, AURANGABAD 4. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, AURANGABAD 5. , , - , / DR, ITAT, SMC BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / / // TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / PRIVATE SECRETARY, , / ITAT, PUNE