Assessee in this appeal is aggrieved on an addition of >6,00,000/- sustained by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Chennai, through his order dated 11.01.2017.

2. Facts apropos are that assessee a pensioner, who retired as Additional Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (Housing) had filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year disclosing income of >4,55,949/-. Ld. Assessing Officer during the course of proceedings ITA No. 1120/Mds/2017 :- 2 -: against one Dr. S. Arunachalam, who had deposited >15,00,000/- in his HDFC account on 31.03.2007, noticed that the latter had stated the sum to have been given to him by the assessee, for purchasing a property at Kasturba Nagar, Adyar, Chennai. It seems assessee had in a letter submitted to the Income Tax Officer, B.W. III(1) stated this. Assessee was required to explain the source for the sum of >15,00,000/- given by him to Dr. S. Arunachalam. Explanation of the assessee was that a sum of >6,70,000/- was withdrawn from his GPF account, >4,00,000/- was given out of his personal savings and >4,00,000/- was given out of savings of his son who was working as software engineer in M/s.Ramco Systems. Assessee also mentioned that he had also received funding from his father-in-law. Ld. Assessing Officer issued a letter to assessees mother-in-law since his father-in-law expired in February, 2009. The lady stated that she had no knowledge about the dealings between assessee and her husband, but she remembered that her husband had given >15,00,000/- to the assessee in March, 2007 and >35,00,000/- to her grandson in April,

2007. Ld. Assessing Officer accepted the submissions of the assessee for sums aggregating to >9,00,000/- out of the total amount of >15,00,000/- and nothing more. He completed the assessment by making an addition of >6,00,000/-. ITA No. 1120/Mds/2017 :- 3 -:

3. Assessees appeal before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not successful.

4. Now before me, ld. Authorised Representative strongly assailing the orders of the lower authorities submitted that assessees son Shri. M.N. Hariprasad who was working as software engineer in M/s.Ramco Systems required money for purchasing a property at Adyar. According to him, assessee had contributed >11,00,000/- and Shri. Hariprasad invested >4,00,000/-. Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative was that affidavit filed by his mother-in-law was not properly considered by the lower authorities. Thus according to him, the addition was unfairly done.

5. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the orders of the authorities below.

6. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. Addition of >6,00,000/- was made by the ld. Assessing Officer disbelieving an affidavit of Smt. N.Rajalakshmi, Mother in-law of the assessee. Said affidavit is reproduced hereunder:- I, Mrs. N. Rajalakshi, W/o. late A. Nainamalai, Hindu. aged about 72 year, residing at 75, Mettu Street, Rasipuram(PO), Namakkal District, do hereby solemnly sincerely, affirm and state as follows I was married to Shri. A. Nainamalai and my husband was carrying on many business activities like fleet ITA No. 1120/Mds/2017 :- 4 -: operator Cinema theater owner and d owning oil and rice mills etc. He was also owning lot of immovable properties in and around Rasipuram. My husband died on 28.02.2009. My daughter Ms. Manjula Devi has been given in marriage to Mr. R.M. Jaganathan, who has recently retired as Addl. Registrar of Co- Operative Societies (housing) Chennai and the couple have only one son by name Mr. J. Hariprasad. My gron son is living with his parents. Recently he got married to Ms. Jayalakshmi who is also resident of Chennai. It was long self desire of my husband that his son-in-law Mr. R.M. Jaganathan should own a house at Chennai and had requested Mr. R. M. Jaganathan to locate a suitable property. For many years, my son-in-law did not take any step and interest to purchase a property in Chennai. In the initial years of marriage my son-in-law used to spend all his salary without having any inclination o save for future. My husband was very particular that his son-in-law should save money for the future and every month he used to visit my son-in-law and collect a potion of his salary forcefully. Whenever there was a demand for reasoanable expenditure in my son-in-laws family my daugther will approach my husband and my husband after satisfying reasonableness of expenditure will hadnd over the money to my son-in-law. Finally in the year 2007 my son-in-law and my grand son located the property in Chennai and wanted to give an advance of >15 lakhs (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) My husband inspected the place and discussed about the genuineness of the title and other things and gave Rs.15Lakhs(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) in the month of March 2007 to Mr,R.M.Jaganathan. He has given this money as advance or purchase o property No.21,Second Main Road, Kasturba Nagar, Adyar,Chennai 600 020 and purchased the property in my grand Sons name namely Mr. J. Hariprasad and balance amounting to >35 lakhs (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Only) was also handed over by my ITA No. 1120/Mds/2017 :- 5 -: husband to my grand son to enable him to purchase the property. Contents of the affidavit has not been disproved or found to be wrong by the Revenue. Nothing has been brought on record by the Revenue which can controvert the contents of the affidavit of Smt. N. Rajalakshmi. Evidential value of the affidavit can be called into question only when there is something on record to show its contents to be incorrect or untrue. I am of the opinion that assessee had brought in sufficient evidence for the source of the sum of >15,00,000/-. In the circumstances, I delete the addition of >6,00,000/- made in the hands of the assessee.

7. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced on Thursday, the 19 th day of December, 2017, at Chennai Sd/- ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER #/Chennai $/Dated:19th December, 2017 KV   ( )( /Copy to:

1. /Appellant 3. * ()/CIT(A) 5. (  //DR

2. /Respondent 4. */CIT 6.  /GF