9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le of the Assessing Officer Interest u/s.234B of the Act - charging of interest is consequential and mandatory - Assessing Officer is however directed to recompute the interest chargeable - assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. - I.T.A. No.623/Bang/2011 - - - Dated:- 29-5-2012 - SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, JJ. Appellant By : Shri H.N. Khincha. Respondent By : Smt. Susan Thomas Jose. Per Shri Jason P. Boaz ORDER ON CONDONATION OF DELAY 1. Form No.36 in this case was filed on 27.5.2011. Admittedly, the order of CIT(A), Bangalore for Assessment Year 2006-07 dt.24.11.2008 was served on the assessee on 27.3.2011. Therefore, the appeal in this case ought to have been filed on or before 26.5.2011. The record shows that Form NO.36 was filed on 27.5.2011 thereby leading to a delay of one day in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed a petition dt.8.7.2011 along with an affidavit of similar date seeking the condonation of one day delay in filing the appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07. The petition and Affidavit seeking condonation of delay for the delay have been carefully considered. In view of the reasons cited ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the additions of Rs. 36,664 and Rs. 4,77,120 be deleted and interest levied be also deleted. 5. In the course of hearing, the learned A.R. stated that the grounds of appeal regarding the addition of Rs.36,664 on account of non-existent liability / inflated liability is not being pressed and is therefore accordingly dismissed. 6.1 The only other ground on merits for our consideration is the addition of Rs.4,77,120 which has been made on account of undisclosed assets. While making the addition, the A.O. has held as under in the order of assessment : Further as per loan statement the loan is disbursed in 29.7.2005. Hence, the vehicle is purchased by the assessee in financial year 2005-06. During course of assessment, the assessee submitted depreciation statement. As per depreciation statement, the assessee has not shown an addition of fixed asset during financial year 2005-06. Hence, the new vehicle purchased is not declared by the assessee in the balance sheet filed. Hence, the value of car at Rs. 4,77,120 is added to assessee s declared income as undisclosed asset. 6.2 In appeal, the learned CIT(A) has confirmed the addition by holding as under in para 9 on pages 6 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an be effected at their choice but the change of name bearing the stamp and seal of the RTO in the R.C. Book is an act of Government and is the best proof to show the genuineness of the alleged gift. Thus the gift is held not genuine. The consequence is obvious. A.O s addition has to be held justified. There is still another reason to uphold the addition of course not related to the gift deed. The depreciation chart filed during the course of scrutiny y does not reflect the transactions properly. At the beginning of the year the opening balance should have shown the WDV of the Qualis. Subsequently when the Getz was purchased on 29.7.2005, it should have been shown as addition. Since the Qualis was allegedly gifted in December 2005, ;the same should have been reflected as an explanation and after the depreciation the WDV could have been shown properly as on31.3.2006. The improper accounting itself shows the straw in the beard of the thief. Whatever maybe the explanation, therefore the same cannot be held as satisfactory to give the relief in the absence of the specific mention of the newly purchased car Getz in the addition column of the depreciation chart and also in the absence of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat since as per the depreciation statement of the assessee, the addition of the fixed asset is not reflected, the value of the new car is added to the assessee s income as undisclosed asset. The learned CIT(A) also in the concluding portion on page 7 of his order holds that the depreciation chart does not reflect the gift transaction properly and in the absence of specific mention of the newly purchased car in the addition column of the depreciation chart, the addition is justified. In this regard, we find from the perusal of the learned CIT(A) s order that there are conflicting findings by the A.O. and the learned CIT(A) as to which of the cars viz. Qualis or Getz was reflected in the assessee s books in the relevant period. The learned CIT(A) records at para 9 of his order that while the A.O. held that W.D.V. of the Qualis has been disclosed, the newly purchased Getz has not been disclosed, he was of the view that the Qualis is still with the assessee while the purchase of the new Getz car is not proved. Admittedly, the depreciation statement filed by the assessee has not been presented in the proper format in as much as the addition thereto and deletion therefrom is not reflect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
