Sanjeev Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)-NFAC order for AY 2011-12 challenging an addition of ₹18,75,000 made under Section 69 in respect of cash deposited in a joint home loan account during the demonetisation period. The Tribunal first condoned a delay of 295 days in filing the appeal after accepting the assessee’s explanation that the appellate order had not been communicated to the authorised representative. On merits, the assessee contended that the deposits represented repayment of a joint home loan, that only ₹12,91,883 was deposited by the assessee while the balance was contributed by his wife, and that documentary evidence, including cash books, confirmations, income tax returns, partnership firm records and the father’s affidavit, established the source of funds. The Tribunal found that the assessee, his wife and father were income-tax assessees with sufficient income, that the cash deposits were explained by documentary evidence, and that the deposits were made towards repayment of a joint home loan rather than any unexplained investment. It further held that Section 69, relating to unexplained investments, had been incorrectly invoked and that the CIT(A) had sustained the addition without addressing this legal objection. Following judicial precedents, the Tribunal held the addition under the incorrect charging provision to be unsustainable, directed deletion of the entire addition and allowed the appeal.
