9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 503 - AT - Income TaxAddition towards chit dividend from Osmania Chit Funds - CIT(A) observed that the assessee has not filed copy of the receipt of ₹ 27,482/- only or that it is not relating to the year of account - HELD THAT - CIT(A) observed that the assessee has not filed copy of the receipt of ₹ 27,482/- only or that it is not relating to the year of account. Even before the Tribunal, no evidence is filed. Therefore, the Ground raised by the assessee on this issue is rejected. Addition towards commission received - assessee has pointed out that there is a mistake in arriving at the figure - HELD THAT - Assessee has drawn our attention to Form 26AS, where the receipt to the extent of ₹ 13,50,647/- were reflected, on which, TDS was also deducted. On perusal of the order of the CIT(A), find that the Ld.CIT(A) has corrected this mistake and restricted the addition to the extent of ₹ 1,54,172/- only. Therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of Ld.CIT(A) and the Ground raised by assessee in this regard, is dismissed. Addition representing the credits into the bank account of State Bank of Hyderabad, Domalguda branch, Hyderabad - HELD THAT - Registered Settlement Deeds were executed on 16-08-2008 23-10-2008, while the cash was deposited on 13-12-2008. Therefore, the possibility of a family settlement cannot be ruled out. It is also seen that the elder brother of the assessee, Shri Venkat Reddy and also the mother of the assessee have executed the Settlement Deeds. Since the Revenue also has not brought out that there were other properties which have been settled in favour of the assessee, the contention of assessee that he has received ₹ 15 Lakhs towards settlement of family property cannot be ruled out totally. Considering the preponderance of probabilities and circumstantial evidence, I am inclined to accept the source of deposit of ₹ 10 Lakhs as the receipt of the amount from his brother. Therefore, the addition to the extent of ₹ 10 Lakhs is deleted and the Ground raised by assessee in this regard is allowed. Disallowance of foreign tour expenses - HELD THAT - Assessee has not been able to produce any evidence to establish that the travel was for business purposes, see no reason to interfere with the well reasoned order of the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue. Hence, this Ground of appeal is rejected.
Issues:
Assessment of dividend income, commission received, bank deposits, foreign tour expenses. Assessment of Dividend Income: The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of ?9,000 to the assessee's income, considering surplus dividend received from Osmania Chit Fund. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition, as the assessee failed to provide evidence supporting the actual amount received. The Tribunal upheld this decision, as no further evidence was presented by the assessee. Assessment of Commission Received: The AO added ?1,75,052 to the assessee's income based on a discrepancy in the total receipts declared by the assessee. The CIT(A) corrected the mistake and restricted the addition to ?1,54,172 after considering Form 26AS. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the assessee's appeal on this issue. Assessment of Bank Deposits: The AO added ?10 lakhs to the assessee's income under section 68 of the Act, related to deposits made into the bank account. The assessee claimed this amount was received from a family settlement, supported by Gift Deeds and a confirmation letter. The Tribunal accepted the source of deposit as legitimate, deleting the addition of ?10 lakhs based on the preponderance of probabilities and circumstantial evidence. Assessment of Foreign Tour Expenses: The AO disallowed ?1,52,596 claimed as foreign tour expenses by the assessee, as no evidence was provided to establish the business purpose of the travel. The CIT(A)'s decision was upheld by the Tribunal, rejecting the appeal on this issue due to lack of substantiating evidence. The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, upholding some additions while deleting others based on the evidence and explanations provided. The order was pronounced on 5th March 2020.
|
