Addition for Unexplained Investment u/s 69 quashed as Muslims religion bars Interest income therefore cash was kept at home
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW
ITA No.697/LKW/2015 Assessment year:2010-11
Mehrun Nisha (Appellant) vs. Income Tax Officer (Respondent)
Date of Order: 04-03-2016
ORDER
PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.
This is assessee’s appeal directed against the order passed by learned CIT(A), Bareilly dated 27/08/2015 for the assessment year 2010-11.
2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:
“1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax appeals in fact & law has on erred in sustaining addition of Rs.495000/- towards unexplained investment under sanction 69 of Income Tax Act 1961.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax appeal has erred in fact & law by not accepting reasonableness past of savings.
3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax has earned in fact & law by not accepting dower debts as well as petty gifts from the relations since marriage to date of purchase of the property.
4. That appellant assesses reserves a right to raise any additional ground at the time of hearing.”
3. Learned A. R. of the assessee reiterated the same contentions which were raised before the authorities below whereas Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below.
Unexplained Investment u/s 69. Muslims religion bars Interest income therefore cash was kept at home
4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the dispute in the present case is regarding purchase of house for Rs.5,45,020/-. Regarding the source of investment, it was explained by the assessee before the Assessing Officer that the assessee belongs to Muslims religion and tradition of Muslim religion is prohibiting to utilize interest income and therefore, all the past savings of job work and Stridhan as well as some gifts received from parents and in-laws from time to time have been kept in the shape of cash at home in her own custody but the Assessing Officer was not satisfied because as per the Assessing Officer, no documentary evidence has been furnished. The objection of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) is that the husband of the assessee was having bank account and he was depositing money in bank also and therefore, it cannot be accepted that the assessee was keeping the funds in cash. In our considered opinion, if one person of this religion is maintaining bank account then it cannot be presumed that all the persons of that religion are also maintaining bank account or should maintain bank account. In our considered opinion, it is very difficult to provide documentary evidence regarding maintaining cash in hand out of past saving and Stridhan and gifts received from parents and relatives. In the present case, the assessee has declared income of Rs.48,000/- in the return of income filed by her. Hence, it cannot be doubted that the assessee was having some saving out of her income and existence of some Stridhan and gifts from parents, in-laws etc. also cannot be ruled out. Considering all these facts, in our considered opinion, in the facts of the present case, investment of Rs.5.45 lac in purchase of house should be accepted and therefore, we delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A).
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
(Order was pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page)
(SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) Judicial Member ( A. K. GARODIA ) Accountant Member
- Under NI Act if cheque signed by drawer is given to payee ’reverse onus clause’ u/s 139 attracted
- High Court grants bail to Income Tax Officer accused of demanding bribe of Rs. 25000/-
- ICAI bans Twelve Chartered Accountants being guilty of professional misconduct
- Cash deposit in demonetisation held exempt assessee being resident of Arunachal Pradesh
- ITAT deleted addition made on presumption – there cannot be loss in restaurant business
