TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 638
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ircumstances of the cases and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that addition of Rs. 1.39 Crore relating to issues of investments in the flat/immovable property is sustainable as per the remand report as against addition made u/s 69 of the Act as per order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B, being taxable under the relevant provision of sec 56(2), when the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction claimed to be receipt of interest free advances by not producing documentary evidences of sources of repayment if any and has also failed to prove the capacity to repay. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the cases and in law, the Hon'ble. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that addition of Rs. 40 La....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act. Lastly, Ld. Assessing officer taxed the cash credits made in the bank account amounting to Rs. 10,52,400/- u/s 68 of the Act in absence of any explanation from the assessee. 3. In response to the ex-parte order passed by AO, the assessee before the CIT (A) filed an application under 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 submitting additional evidence which could not furnished at the time of assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) called for remand report and in the remand report AO admitted that the property was purchased for Rs. 2,59,00,000/- and not for 5,58,00,000/- and further stated that the share of assessee was 50%, so undisclosed investment in property in the hands of assessee is only to the extent of Rs. 1,39,50,000/-. AO furthe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O took altogether new plea that the addition in the hands of assessee is sustainable U/s 56(2) of the Act. Ld. Senior DR submitted that since the assessee do not have the capacity to repay her entire contribution to Arun Patil hence, both amount paid for purchase of house and car should be treated as gift to her and is thus taxable U/s 56(2) of the Act. 6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the remand proceeding assessee had submitted loan confirmation from Arun Patil along with his bank statement and ITR to substantiate the loan and part of the amount was also repaid by the assessee. So at no stretch of imagination it can be treated as Gift U/s 56(2) of the Act. He also submitted that revenue can not d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and in case he finds that the assessee is unable to furnish the explanation or the explanation offered by him is not satisfactory, the assessing officer can treat the value of the investments to be the income of the assessee of the financial year in which she/he has made the investments. 8. In the case of the assessee, the nature and source of payment is satisfactorily explained by the assessee with necessary supporting evidences and the AO has also not questioned the genuineness of the loan given by Shri Arun Nair and whether the loan have been completely repaid or pending is of no relevance to invoking of provisions of 69 of the Act. Therefore, we do not find any fallacy in the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition made ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of Yogesh Khairnar (brother of the assessee) evidencing payment of Rs. 10,00,055 paid by him on behalf of the assessee for purchase of the Mercedes on 22.02.2017, * Bank Statements of Ranjana Mahesh Khairnar (mother of the assessee) showing payments of Rs. 10,00,055 paid by her on behalf of the assessee for purchase of the Mercedes on 22.02.2017. 11. Further the AO has also in the remand report admitted that the ultimate source of car purchase of Rs. 40,00,000 is from the bank account of Shri Arun Patil (Prop: M/s Nirman Constructions) by giving Rs. 20,00,000 to the assessee, Rs. 10,00,000 to Mr.Yogesh Khairnar and Rs. 10,00,000 to Ranjana Khairnar which were utilized for purchasing the car. Therefore, when it is admitted by t....