TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 255
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... section 68 remain satisfied. 3. Merely because the buyer of the property has denied having paid the additional amount of Rs. 49.80 lakhs, it is not proper on the part of the officers below, to disbelieve the statement of the legal heir of the appellant. 4. Having proved the source of the credit, the genuineness of the transaction and the capacity of the legal heir of the appellant, it was not proper on the part of the officers below to have rejected such explanation which are within the parameters of section 68. 5. The officers below should have also appreciated the fact that the deceased appellant was not having any source of income nor any material with the Department to hold that the amount of Rs. 67,38,500 remain unexplained. 6. For the above reasons and other reasons as may be adduced at the time of hearing, your appellant prays that the amount of Rs. 67,38,500 may be deleted. 3. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the order of the Assessing Officer are reproduced hereinbelow : "In the course of the scrutiny proceedings, the assessee, Smt. Suryakala, expired on December 1, 2012, and the death certificate is filed on re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oned and he was asked whether he had paid the additional amount of Rs. 49,80,000 for the transaction of property. He has totally denied the payment. 10. In an attempt to explain the source of the deposits, the assessee submitted that the money has come from the sale proceeds of the property in the name of her husband, Sri C. P. Gopakumar, but he has not confirmed it so far. 11. While presenting the source as sale proceeds amounting to Rs. 71,00,000, the assessee simultaneously offered the capital gain on the same for assessment but as long as she is not the owner of the property, the question of capital gain does not arise in her hands. 12. In this connection, the assessee claimed that the deposit of Rs. 18,00,000 on June 22, 2009, came from the 'advance received' for sale but no evidence is produced in this respect also. 13. In view of the above, the entire sum of Rs. 91,50,000 consti tuting the bank deposits remain unexplained and it is subjected to assessment as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income-tax Act. This is notwithstanding any action that may be taken in the case of Sri C. P. Gopakumar." 4. The learned Commi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rn and there is no concealment of income of whatsoever kind. Accordingly, the orders of the authorities below are required to be reversed. 8. The learned Departmental representative on the other hand relied upon the orders of both the authorities below. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. It is not in dispute that the assessee has submitted the explanation which in itself is evident from the grounds of appeal taken before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) available at pages 1, 2 and 3 of his order which for the sake of convenience are being reproduced hereinbelow. "1. Order of the assessing authority (AO) treating the bank credits as income from unexplained investments under section 69 and taxed accordingly is against facts and bad in law. 2. Amount credited in the bank account (HDFC Bank A/c No. 03111000004761) never belonged to the appellant at the time of credit. The appellant convincingly explained and substantiated that out of Rs. 91,50,000 credited Rs. 71,00,000 belonged to sale proceeds including the premium received from the husband's property (C. P. Gopakumar). Hence, the Assessing Officer'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....credits and rental income received during the year. But the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the appellant and taken the entire Rs. 91,50,000 as unexplained investment. It is very clear from the bank statement that the appellant has withdrawn Rs. 19,20,000 by cash from bank during the period. Cash withdrawals from bank from the date of first deposit, i.e., December 24, 2009, is given below. Date Cash withdrawn (Rs.) 24-7-2009 50,000 6-7-2009 25,000 7-7-2009 90,000 17-7-2009 2,50,000 29-7-2009 20,000 31-7-2009 50,000 4-8-2009 1,00,000 8-8-2009 1,70,000 2-8-2009 15,000 28-8-2009 10,000 17-9-2009 10,000 18-9-2009 2,25,000 22-9-2009 1,00,000 3-10-2009 2,00,000 3-10-2009 2,00,000 13-1-2009 2,00,000 28-11-2009 25,000 3-12-2009 5,000 7-12-2009 20,000 23-2-2009 1,55,000 Total cash withdrawals 19,20,000 Hence, bank credit of Rs. 91,50,000 is reconciled as under : (Rs.) Proceeds from sale of property 71,00,000 Cash withdrawals from bank redeposited 19,20,000 Income from rental income 13,00,000 Gross income return....