Case Law Details
Assessee had declared an income by filing its return. The said return was selected for scrutiny through CASS on the basis of AIR. Assessment u/s 144 was made, resulting in an addition of Rs. 28,50,000/- as the assessee was found to have failed to explain the source of investment.
In appeal before the first appellate authority the assessee explained that investments had been sourced partly out of the redemption amount of Rs. 19,09,029/- of Birla Sun Life Mutual Fund and partly out of loans of Rs. 17,00,000/- from close friends and relations.
The CIT(A) forwarded these submissions and facts to the AO and a remand report was invited. Considering the same, the CIT(A) after hearing the assessee deleted the additions made. Aggrieved by this, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is seen that qua the amounts of Rs. 8 lacs as loan from Shri Ajay Sood father-in-law of assessee’s sister and Rs. 2.5 lac each from Shri Satish Vohra and his wife we find that considering the nature of evidences placed by the assessee on record which have not been rebutted we find that the revenue’s arguments have no merits. It is further seen that the factum of loan from Ms. Bhamti Mehrotra the assessee’s sister who was married in November 2008 the arguments that it was returned by incurring expenditure on her marriage in November 2008 cannot be doubted. The material fact is that the loan was advanced by her. Similarly we find merit in the arguments of Ld. AR who while addressing ground 4 raised by the revenue has contended that the factum of redemption of Birla Sun Life Mutual Fund is not doubted by the revenue and the ground itself suggest that the grievance is based only to the fact that whether it was short term capital gain or long termcapital gain:
Thus the factum of redemption stands accepted and has not rebutted before us. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances we find that the said ground of the revenue also does not have any merit. In view of the above mentioned peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we find ourselves in agreement with the following findings of the CIT(A) recorded in para 15 to 18 and hold that the departmental appeal, being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. The relevant findings are reproduced herein :-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
