TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (11) TMI 971
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, the assessment was completed on an income of Rs. 53,69,430/- by making additions of Rs. 25,05,000/- and 10,15,000/- under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). According to the assessee, he had taken loan of Rs. 25,05,000/- from M/s. Rich Capital and Financial Services Ltd., which was invested in purchase of commercial plots at Gomtinagar, Lucknow. The Assessing Officer required the assessee to substantiate his claim regarding source of these investments and in response thereto, the assessee submitted photocopies of confirmation letter from M/s. Rich Capital and Financial Services Ltd. in support of his claim. He also produced the photocopy of bank account of the lending Company with M/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear at that time and was selected by the assessee for marriage to his elder son Anurag Agrawal. There was no earlier business relationship between the assessee and Ms. Pallavi Agarwal nor was she engaged in any business activities. So, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 10,15,000/- as undisclosed income in the hands of assessee. Aggrieved by the aforesaid additions made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellate Authority'). The Appellate Authority deleted the additions and while doing so, observed as follows:- "Matter was also discussed with the AR, the AO & report called from the Addl. CIT (the report is received from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TR 303 (Delhi). (2) Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT, 214 ITR 801 (SC). After hearing learned counsel for the revenue and on appraisal of material available on record, it appears that addition of Rs. 25,05,000/- was made only for the ground that the Director of M/s. Rich Capital & Financial Services Ltd. was not produced before the revenue. But facts remains that so far as the identity of the lender is concerned, it cannot be questioned because it is a public limited Company and is regularly assessed to income tax having PAN. Therefore, in our considered view, onus is discharged by the assessee by producing necessary evidence. The source of source cannot be examined in view of law laid down in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Calcut....