Case Law Details
Aarti Raman vs. DCIT (ITAT Bangalore), ITA No.245/Bang/2012, Date of Pronouncement : 05.10.2012
Assessee submitted that the part of the AIR on which the AO made the impugned addition of Rs. 26 lakhs was not correct and that the assessee did not make any such investments as revealed in the AIR. The assessee also brought to the notice of the CIT(A) the decision of the ITAT Bangalore ‘A’ Bench dated 22.10.2010 in the case of DCIT v. G. Selvakumar – ITA No.868/Bang/2010 A. Y. 2006-07, wherein the Tribunal had taken the view that when the AIR shows some investment and the assessee denies it, no addition can be made on account of unexplained investments without further evidence to show that the assessee made investments. The assessee also submitted that the information contained in the AIR is a guideline for the Officer based on which the Officer can initiate enquiries and that under no circumstances can AIR be considered as absolute document to conclude the assessment.
On the above submissions by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) held as follows:–
“8. I completely agree with the above inference of the AR quoted in Para 7. In fact by denying so the assessee shifted the burden to the A.O. I observe the A.O. had been given sufficient time i.e., from 23rd March 2010 to 25-11-2010 to prove the assertion he made to justify the addition. However no such efforts have been made at all. But he made the addition on the basis of AIR information. Thus the onus shifted to AO could not be discharged at all. Besides the A.O. has also failed to respond to objection of the assessee that the AIR is patently wrong in showing 7 lakhs investments made in cash in Mutual Fund as per SEBI Guidelines. But this does not mean that I am in favour of the assessee and as per the prayer going to direct the AO to delete the addition. I observe that the A.O. probably got handicapped by the AIR passed on to him because no details of scrips/shares purchased or names of Mutual Fund was mentioned in the AIR. Probably the assessee had taken advantage of such lack of information in the AIR. This itself differentiates the fact from the cited case law wherein at least the AO had got the Knowledge of Sub-Registrars Office from whom he could have elicited the information to strengthen the addition made in that case. Here there is no such scope at all, But this would not render the AIR wrong on the basis of allegation of AR that if contains arbitrary information. Hence the addition is held justified. However the details of additions as per the Assessment order is –
