Any addition made on the basis of surmises is unjustified. Suspicion however strong cannot partake the character of the evidence/material on record. Suspicion should be a trigger point for further investigation but the A.O. failed to do so. The addition thus deleted.
1. Assessee an individual and case was selected under scrutiny through CASS
2. A.O. noticed that there were certain cash deposits on various dated totalling to Rs. 10,59,500/-
3. Assessee was asked to prove the source of the funds
4. Assessee explained that the deposit of Rs. 3,55,000/- was made by his relative for marriage of his two daughters
5. Assessee filed confirmation
6. During the course of assessment proceedings statement of Sh. Dalip Singh was recorded whereby he confirmed having deposited the said amount
7. A.O. rejected the explanation and added it as income of the assessee
8. Assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal but confirmed the addition of Rs. 3,55,000/- deposited by Sh. Dalip Singh
9. Assessee moved to Tribunal against the order of CIT(A)
10. Tribunal decided in favour of assessee on the basis of available facts on record
On perusal of the above stated evidences and in the back ground of the fact that Shri Dalip Singh himself has confirmed before the Assessing Officer that he has deposited this amount of Rs.3,55,000/ -in assessee ’s bank account, this explanation cannot be rejected outrightly. These evidences filed by the assessee also prove that Shri Dalip Singh is a man of means and there is also a relation between him and the assessee, therefore, it cannot be denied that Shri Dalip Singh, in fact, has given this amount to the assessee. The explanation given by the assessee and Sh. Dalip Singh that the amount was deposited for making purchases for the marriage of daughter may sound weird and can raise suspicion in the mind of Assessing Officer. It can be a trigger point for further investigation by the Assessing Officer. However, in its order the Assessing Officer has not been able to bring on record any material or evidence to falsify this explanation and documentary evidences filed by the assessee. Even before me, the learned DR has not been able to do the same. The addition has solely been made on the basis of surmises. Suspicion howsoever strong cannot partake the character of the evidence/material, as held by the Apex Court in the land mark judgement in case of Umcharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271(SC). In view of this, I am not able to come to a conclusion other than that the deposit of Rs.3,55,000/ -has in fact been deposited by Shri Dalip Singh. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is hereby deleted.
Cases referred to
Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271(SC)