Kavya Saurabh Rastogi Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Delhi ITAT dismissed Assessee’s appeal & upheld the addition of ₹25.35 lakh as unexplained investment u/s 69, holding that Assessee failed to establish the creditworthiness of his mother & sister, from whom loans were allegedly taken for purchase of a residential house.
Assessee, engaged in trading, had declared income of ₹3.47 lakh. Based on AIR data, AO noticed sale of a plot for ₹32.66 lakh & purchase of a house for ₹35 lakh. Though capital gains exemption u/s 54 was allowed, AO added ₹25.35 lakh as unexplained investment as the source of balance payment was not proved. Assessee claimed the funds came from loans from his mother & sister but failed to submit complete confirmations, PANs, ITRs, or bank statements.
CIT(A) admitted additional evidence u/r 46A & sought remand report, but AO found that the alleged lenders’ bank accounts lacked sufficient balances & the transactions were not substantiated. The CIT(A), therefore, sustained the addition.
ITAT concurred, holding that Assessee did not discharge the initial onus to prove identity, creditworthiness & genuineness of the loans. It further upheld the estimation of business income at 8% of turnover under section 44AD.
Result: Appeal dismissed; additions for unexplained investment of ₹25.35 lakh & business income confirmed.
