TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 247
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Ground No.1 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ['CITfA)'] has erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer (AO) in not accepting the Return of Income ("ROI") o|. the Appellant at Rs.5,33,660/- and instead, assessing the income at Rs.85,33,660/- , 2. The Appellant craves leave before your Honour's to direct the AO to delete the addition made by AO and accept the ROI filed by the Appellant. Ground No.2 1. On facts and circumstances of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The Appellant craves leave before your Honour's to kindly consider and peruse the said documents on records and thereby delete the addition of unexplained investments u/s 69 of the Act. The Appellant craves leave, to add, alter, amend, or delete any ground of appeal, before or at the time of hearing. 3. The first ground of appeal raised by the assessee is general in nature and does not require any separate adjudication. Hence, the same is dismissed being infructuous. 4. The next issue raised by the assessee vide ground nos. 3 and 4 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 80 Lakhs by treating the investment in Mutual Fund as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd amount was transferred out of proceed of maturity of fixed deposit held with NRO account. All these detail were duly furnished which sufficiently explain the sources of fund for investment but the AO without considering all these details held that investment in mutual fund was not explained and made addition which needs to be deleted. 8. The learned CIT (A) after considering the facts in totality confirmed the order of the AO by observing as under: 5.3 The appellant has made investment of Rs.20,00,000/- in Reliance Mutual | Fund on 11.12.2010, of Rs.20,00,000/- in Kotak Mutual Fund on 01.01.2011, | of Rs.20,00,000/- in Birla Sun Life Mutual Fund on 05.01.2011, of Rs.10,00,000/- in Reliance Mutual Fund on 24.03.2011 and Rs.lO,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d retired in 2005. He became a USA Citizen in 2000. His spouse, Smt. Meena Desai moved to California in 1984 after marriage and has been running a travel agency in US with a partner. She became a US Citizen in 1995. In the various documents of HSBC of terra deposits advices have been furnished but it has not been pin pointed as to which amount in US Dollar was remitted to HSBC Mumbai which is the source of fund in HDFC Bank account of the appellant. Under the circumstances, I am not to satisfied that the appellant has discharged the onus at least to the extent that in the money was remitted by his wife out of her funds in USA. 5.4 As to the other grounds of appeal, it is seen that the AO had the information of various investments m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve authorities. Therefore, no addition is warranted under the provisions of section 69 of the Act. 11. The learned DR before us vehemently supported the stand of the authorities below by reiterating the findings contained in the respective orders which we have already adverted to in the preceding paragraph. Therefore we are not repeating the same for the sake of brevity. 12. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the assessee has purchased units of Mutual fund of different banks amounting to Rs. 80 Lakh which was treated as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act by the AO and subsequently confirmed by the learned CIT(A). The assessee before the lea....