Karunamoorthi Kavitha Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai)
In the matter abovementioned ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee after deleting the addition made u/s 68 after observing the fact that assessee had filed relevent details during assesssment.
Assessee is a Gynaecologist, running a multi specialty hospital. A survey was conducted u/s 133A and found that the assessee has been generating income by renting out a medical shop for Rs.5,000/- per month and canteen for Rs.7,000/- per month and the same was not offered to tax from June, 2017 onwards. Assessee was asked to explain the source for an amount invested in construction of hospital. Assessee explained that investment of Rs.35,00,000/- received from her mother and brother as cash gift. Lateron, assessee filed her return at Rs.2,45,96,150/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings, AO found claim of cash gift received from her mother and brother to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- respectively has not been supported by proper evidences of the source and made an addition of Rs.35,00,000/- as unexplained cash credits u/s 68.
Before CIT (A) it was explained by assessee by furnishing the details of donor, their address, PAN, occupation and source of income who gave gift to the assessee. Since the donors have received money as advance for sale of agricultural land by way of cash and hence, the question of demonstrating the cash withdrawal from the bank does not arise. Source of source cannot be asked by AO when assessee has explained the nature and source of the deposit. CIT (A) rejected submissions of the assessee.
