RAJESH YADAV,ALLAHABAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(3) SONEBHDRA, SONEBHDRA

ITA 71/VNS/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Rajesh Yadav, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, which dismissed his appeal in limine regarding the assessment year 2011-12. The primary issue was the addition of Rs.13.90 lakhs as 'unexplained investment' under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, which the AO claimed was used for house construction and not properly documented as a gift from his father or a loan from Nagar Sahakari Bank. The Tribunal found that the AO had not adequately considered the documents and explanations provided by the assessee, leading to the decision to remand the case back to the AO for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473608 (ITAT-VARANASI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 12-09-2024
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVITA MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: O.P. SHUKLA; AWADHESH DUBEY
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CIRCUIT BENCH(SMC), VARANASI BEFORE: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.71/VNS/2024 (Assessment Year :2011-12) Rajesh Yadav 17A, Swarnim Ashok Nagar Allahabad Uttar Pradesh – 211 002 Vs. Income Tax Officer 3(3) Sonebhdra Uttar Pradesh PAN/GIR No.AEBPY8718A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri O.P. Shukla, Adv. & Shri Awadhesh Dubey, Adv. Revenue by Smt. Kavita Meena, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date of Pronouncement 09/10/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN (A.M): The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 10/06/2023 passed by ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi and it relates to the A.Y.2011-12. 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine. The ld. AR stated that the assessee has made a deposit into his saving bank account maintained with UCO bank totalling to Rs.13.90 lakhs during the financial year 2010-11 relevant to A.Y.2011-12. The assessee had taken a loan of Rs.8,00,000/- ITA No.71/VNS/2024 Rajesh Yadav 2 from Nagar Sahakari Bank and the same was used to make out of the deposit. In addition to the above, the assessee has received a gift of Rs.5.90 lakhs from his father Shri Ram Kewal Yadav and the said amount was also deposited into the bank. Accordingly, assessee explained the source of the deposit of Rs.13,90,000/-. The Assessing Officer did not believe the claim of the assessee with regard to the deposit of bank loan and the reasoning is that the assessee might have utilised the same for construction of the house. He also disputed the claim of receipt of gift on the reasoning that the assessee did not furnish the details of partnership deed, books of accounts, bills/vouchers of the firm in which the father of the assessee was a partner. With regard to the gift received from the father, it was explained that the father of the assessee Shri Ram Kewal Yadav had worked in a Government department and after superannuation, he started a business by forming a partnership firm under the name of Swarnim Construction Co., It was stated that the above said amount of Rs.5.90 lakhs was withdrawn from the capital account of the above said firm. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs.13.90 lakhs as ‘unexplained investment’ u/s.69 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non-appearance. 3. I heard the parties and perused the record. With regard to the claim of deposit of Rs.8,00,000/- received as loan from Nagar Sahakari Bank. I noticed that the AO did not dispute the above such claim. His only observation was that the assessee might have used the above said loan amount for ITA No.71/VNS/2024 Rajesh Yadav 3 construction of the house. It can be noticed that the Assessing Officer has made the above said observation on surmise and conjecture. 4. With regard to the claim of receipt of gift from father, it is noticed that the assessee has furnished cop of return of income filed by the partnership firm M/s.Swarnim Construction Co., alongwith computation of income, balance sheet and profit and loss account and also capital account of father of the assessee in that firm. Thus, I noticed that assessee has furnished sufficient documents to the claim of the receipt of gift however, the same was rejected on the ground that the assessee did not furnish copy of partnership deed, books of accounts, bill/voucher of the partnership firm which the assessee is not prepared to furnish before the AO. I am also of the view that reasoning given by the AO for not accepting the claim of gift was not correct. Accordingly, in my view both the explanations in the facts and circumstances of the case, may be accepted. However, since the ld. CIT(A) has passed the order exparte and since the documents furnished by the assessee, the case examination afresh in light of the business made in supra, I prefer to restore the matter to the file of the AO for examining afresh in light of the business made in supra. I also direct the assessee to fully co-operate with the AO for expeditious completion of the assessment. ITA No.71/VNS/2024 Rajesh Yadav 4 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 09/10/2024 by way of proper mentioning in the notice board. Sd/- (B.R. BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Varanasi; Dated 09/10/2024 KARUNA, sr.ps Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Varanasi 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), Varanasi. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Varanasi 6. Guard file. //True Copy// "