Appeal allowed on bank charges but remanded for unexplained investment verification.

The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The disallowance of bank charges amounting to Rs. 1,206 was upheld, while the addition of Rs. 23,00,000 on account of alleged unexplained investment under Section 69B was remanded for further verification. The order was pronounced on 28.06.2019.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of bank charges amounting to Rs. 1,206.
2. Addition of Rs. 23,00,000 on account of alleged unexplained investment under Section 69B.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Bank Charges Amounting to Rs. 1,206:

The assessee claimed bank charges of Rs. 1,206 against income shown under the head "other sources." The Assessing Officer (A.O.) disallowed this claim as the assessee failed to establish a nexus between the expenditure and the earning of interest income. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal agreed with the lower authorities, noting that the assessee did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the bank charges were expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning the interest income. The Tribunal also addressed the assessee's argument that similar deductions were allowed in previous assessment years (A.Y 2006-07 to A.Y 2008-09), stating that those years were distinguishable on facts as no assessment was pending on the date of search, unlike the current year (A.Y 2011-12). Thus, the disallowance of bank charges was upheld, and Ground of appeal No. 1 was dismissed.

2. Addition of Rs. 23,00,000 on Account of Alleged Unexplained Investment Under Section 69B:

During a search and seizure operation, certain loose papers marked as Annexure A-1 were found at the assessee's residential premises, which indicated trading in shares of M/s Valecha Engineering Ltd. and Reliance group. The A.O. added Rs. 23,00,000 as unexplained investment under Section 69B, based on these documents. The assessee claimed these documents did not belong to him or his family and might have been left by visitors. The A.O. rejected this explanation, and the CIT(A) upheld the A.O.'s decision.

The Tribunal examined the issue and noted that while Section 292C allows for the presumption that documents found during a search belong to the person from whose possession they were seized, this presumption can be rebutted. The Tribunal found that the assessee consistently denied ownership of the documents and that the A.O. did not provide concrete evidence to disprove this claim. The Tribunal also noted the absence of the assessee's name on the documents and the lack of verification from the broker mentioned in the documents. Given these considerations, the Tribunal concluded that the matter required further verification and remanded the issue back to the A.O. for re-adjudication, allowing Ground of appeal No. 2 for statistical purposes.

3. General Grounds of Appeal:

The Ground of appeal No. 3, being general in nature, was dismissed as not pressed.

Conclusion:

The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the disallowance of bank charges upheld and the issue of unexplained investment remanded for further verification. The order was pronounced in the open court on 28.06.2019.

---