TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 410
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... amount of Rs.2,53,09,000/- in cash through Will of Mrs. Rekha K. Bhansali who is sister of Ashok K. Bhansali (Father of the assessee). The Assessing Officer has reproduced the Will in his order at page 2. The Assessing Officer (AO) perused the above Will and observed that Mrs. Rekha K. Bhansali has bequeathed the immovable properties to M/s Kirtilal & Sons HUF and Vishal A. Bhansali HUF. He also observed that the Will do not mention anything about cash in hand. On inquiry, the assessee has submitted copy of statement of affairs of late Mrs. Rekha K. Bhansali with pending cash balance of Rs. 5.07 crores. The AO observed that 50% of the cash deposit made by the assessee is matches with the cash in hand disclosed. In order to verify the genuineness and creditworthiness of Mrs. Rekha K. Bhansali, the AO asked the assessee to file the return of income of Mrs. Rekha K. Bhansali for earlier assessment years, the details of all the properties held by her, break up of capital account and source of cash deposit in bank of the assessee with documentary evidence. 2.1 Not satisfied with the submissions made by the assessee. The AO in order to verify the genuineness of the Will submitted bef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vidence in the eye of law. Money could not be deposited at a time in bank as she was not holding any cash but it was all outstanding with the various peoples, and as and when your appellant realized money from them same have been deposited in the bank account. The Ld. AO is once again writing stories on this issue without even examining the bare facts of the case. It is very apparent the Ld. AO has applied the provisions wrongly for the reasons best known to her only, now coming to the other issues raised by her in the Assessment Order. But before going in to that it would be pertinent. to state the bare facts of the case which is that appellant HUF has received funds from her own spinster sister on her death on the basis of will executed by her, the appellant HUF had unmarried sister namely Smt. Rekha Bhansali who was staying with her throughout her life till death with them only, apparently there cannot be any legal heir for her in accordance with her status as she was single thorough out her life. Not only that she was also assessed to Income tax as well as wealth tax and up to date returns were filed in her case till her death, the copy of latest and last return filed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., is by saying that they have not filed any return after A. Y. 2005- 06 which clearly shows her arbitrariness and ulterior motive to harass the appellant. If she was very particular to know about the name of signatory of the firm she must have written one more letter and asked for the same, but than she might have not be in position to do what she has done otherwise. Now his sworn statement is more fatal to the Ld. AO than your appellant for the following reasons:- He admittedly confirm having known to the family of appellant, he also admit to frequenting the house and office of the appellant during the relevant period when the will was executed. He identifies the signature thereon as his own, but do not remember, how it could be? She must have allowed her with time to remember, ought to have given us an opportunity to cross examine him to arrive at the truth, must have recalled another witness, but she has measurably failed in doing all that, reasons are very obvious because if she would have done all that probably her ambition of making addition would not have got fulfilled. It is strange that person who has frequented the residence of the appellant so ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant further produced the Agreement of Sale dated 04-09-2012 which was signed by the executants of will during her life time with the seller of Tea Estate, it also contains the details of advance paid by her during her life time, the said agreement was produced before the Learned AO for his perusal and return but unfortunately he has not mentioned anything on this in the assessment order for your ready reference we are enclosing herewith the copy of the same. It was this sale agreement referred above from which money has come back after her death on cancellation of the sale agreement." 5. After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the grounds raised by the assessee with the following observation : 5. I have given my careful consideration to the rival submissions, perused the material on record and duly considered the factual matrix of the case as also the applicable legal position for arriving the following decision. 6. Ground No. 1 to 9 basically to the addition of Rs. 2,53,09,000/- to the total income of the appellant without quoting any particular section of the Act, under which the addition is made. As ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll. The reasoning of the AO that the will is not genuine is based on suspicion and surmises. In case the validity of the Will is questioned, the AO should be able to support his stance with solid proof. In this case the AO has no evidence to support his claim, which seems to only be a hunch. In the sworn statement recorded by the AO, of one of the witnesses to the "Will", has admitted that the signature on the "Will" is his. Therefore, it cannot be said that the "Will" is not genuine. 6.5 There are certain decisions, in which facts of the case are similar to that of the appellant: 1. Amaranth Agarwal v. Asst. CIT (2014) 52 taxmann.com 218/219 Taxman 54 (All.) The Assessing Officer treated entire deposit of cash in bank account as assessee's own money earned from undisclosed source. The Tribunal partly upheld addition made by the Assessing Officer. Held that there was no attempt on part of Tribunal to determine as to whether section 68 could have been invoked, even if the Assessing Officer had invoked provisions of section 68. Thus it would be appropriate to restore proceeding back to the Tribunal. 2. CIT v. Ramesh Suri (2015) 57 taxm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... could be? How can he be so ignorant, and even if he is so ignorant the Ld. AO cannot punish the appellant for the lameness of the witness. Therefore, the existence of will, identity and creditworthiness of Mrs. Rekha K. Bhansali cannot be disputed. With regard to the genuineness of the transaction, copy of Will of Mrs. Rekha K. Bhansali was furnished before the AO as well during the appellate proceedings. This will has not been proved fake / false by the AO. The appellant has produced a sale agreement dated 04.11.2012 in which Mrs Rekha K. Bhansali had paid total amount of Rs. 5,06,18,000/- to the seller of the tea estate. Upon her untimely death the sale agreement was revoked and as per the terms of the will the appellant received half of amount totaling Rs. 2,53,09,000/- only. 6.7 In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to agree with the contention of the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal on Grounds No. 1 to 9 are treated as 'Allowed'." 6. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal : 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t violated any provision of income tax law warranting any addition. Now coming to the issue addition said to be on account of cash deposited in the bank accounts of appellant. When the appellant was questioned about this he explained as follows:- Yes, there was a cash deposited in to the various bank accounts of the appellant and copies of such bank accounts was duly submitted by the appellant HUF. >>>> He further explained that amount has been received on account of WILL executed by her aunt that is her father's sister namely Late Smt. Rekha Bhansali who was also assessed to tax. The existence of the executants' of will is not in dispute, however her creditworthiness was questioned for which it was submitted that she was assessed to tax and her annual income returned was in order of 10 to 15 lakhs, she was filing her returns regularly and on time and copies of the same was submitted, which has not been countered by the Ld. AO in any way. >>>> It was further stated that she was Single and Spinster not married and was living with father of the kartha of HUF throughout her life, and when she died she was aged more than 75 years, an....