RAJ KUMAR SHARMA,PATNA V. ITO WARD (5), PATNA

ITA 456/PAT/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Raj Kumar Sharma, a retired Block Development Officer, against the order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2010-2011. The primary issue was the treatment of the entire purchase cost of a flat, amounting to Rs.30.20 lakhs, as undisclosed income by the Assessing Officer. The assessee provided evidence of loans and bank transactions to substantiate the source of funds used for the flat purchase. The CIT(A) accepted some of the assessee's claims but treated a portion of the payment as unexplained. The tribunal, after reviewing the evidence, concluded that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the funds, leading to the allowance of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 653133 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHWANI KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: PANKAJ JYOTI

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पटना न्यायपीठ, पटना IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC BENCH”, PATNA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.456/PAT/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011) Raj Kumar Sharma, S/o Shri Ram Chandra Sharma Gabhatal, Danapur, PO: Digha Danapur, Patna, Bihar. Vs ITO, Ward-5, Patna PAN No. :AQAPS 0820 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Pankaj Jyoti, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 18/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 18/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Id. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 30.04.2024 for the assessment year 2010-2011. 2. Shri Pankaj Jyoti, ld. AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Ashwani Kumar, ld.Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is a retired Block Development Officer. It was the submission that during the assessment year 2010-2011 the assessee had purchased a flat at a cost of Rs.30.20 lakhs. It was the submission that admittedly the assessee had not provided all the details before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer treated the entire purchase as undisclosed income of the assessee. It was the submission that before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee had produced the ITA No.456/PAT/2024 2 evidence of loan of Rs.16.10 lakhs from State Bank of India, loan of Rs.3 lakhs from the account of assessee’s wife and proof of payment of Rs.11.10 lakhs by the assessee through his bank account. It was submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has accepted the claim of the assessee in respect of the loan from SBI and loan from her wife but had treated the entire payment made by the assessee through his bank account as unexplained. It was the prayer that the addition as made by the Assessing Officer and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be deleted. 4. In reply, ld.Sr. DR vehemently supported the order of the ld.AO and ld. CIT(A) and drew the attention of the Bench to page 14 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) wherein the ld. CIT(A) has extracted the break up cost of Rs.30.20 lakhs. Out of Rs.30.20 lakhs, after reducing the amount of loan of Rs.16.10 lakhs taken from SBI, the break up is shown in respect of Rs.15 lakhs. It was the submission that the assessee has not produced any proof as has been mentioned by the ld.CIT(A) and prayed that the orders of both the authorities below should be upheld. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the statement chart as prepared by the ld. CIT(A) at page 14 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) clearly shows that the payments have been made through bank. There is no allegation that any cash deposit has been taken place in the bank before issuance of the cheque. This being so, I am of the view that the assessee has explained the source for investment in the flat. Consequently, the addition as made by the Assessing Officer and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) stands deleted. ITA No.456/PAT/2024 3 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 18/06/2025. Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER Kolkata; दिनाांक Dated 18/06/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पटना /ITAT, Patna 1. Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent- 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 5. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, पटना / DR, ITAT, Patna 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यापपत प्रतत //True Copy// "