9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 560X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 234B and 234C – Held that:- Levy of interest is mandatory and consequential in nature. Thus, appeal is dismissed. - ITA No. 316/PN/2012 and ITA No.317/PN/2012 - - - Dated:- 14-5-2013 - Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav And Shri R. K. Panda,JJ. For the Appellant : Sri M. K. Kulkarni For the Respondent : Sri S. K. Singh ORDER Per R. K. Panda, AM :- The above 2 appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 30-11-2011of the CIT(A)-II, Nashik relating to Assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 respectively. For the sake of convenience, these were heard and are being disposed of by this common order. ITA No.316/PN/2012 (A.Y. 2004-05) :- 2. Grounds of appeal No. 1 and 2 read as under : "1. On the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disclosed sources in his hands. However, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee in his return filed has not offered the same to tax. The Assessing Officer referred to the question put by the Investigation Wing and the reply of the assessee which are as under : "Q.No.8 Please go through file No. A-4 regarding a plot purchased by Shri Amit Luthra containing agreement to sale notorised on 29-08-2003. According to which the cost of plot is Rs.7,11,000/- out of which Rs.4,11,000/-+Rs.10,000/- has been paid by cash and remaining balance of Rs.2,90,000/- by crossed cheque. Please state whether this investment has been disclosed in the Income tax records or in the books of accounts and what is the source of the cash payments of Rs.4,21,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etter dated 29/12/2008 wherein he has specifically mentioned that :- In addition to the above I also disclosed the amount of Rs. 4,21,000/- invested in the land at Aurangabad in the name of my son Amit as per document notarized on 29/08/2003 and this income is declared to AY 2004-05 in my hands. This amount is declared voluntarily in good faith. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) may not be initiated. The answer to question No. 8 of the statement recorded on 05/10/2006 is as follows: Q. No. 8 Please go through file No. A-4 regarding a plot purchased by shri. Amit K. Luthra containing and agreement to sale notorized on 29/08/2003. According to which the cost of plot is Rs. 7,11,000/- out of which Rs. 4,11,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- has been p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aining balance of Rs. 2,40,000/- was paid by crossed cheque. Since the appellant could not substantiate his claim that the cash of Rs. 4,21,000/- was paid by his wife late Smt. Urmil K. Luthara on behalf of her son Amit, Appellant disclosed the same as his additional income for AY 2004-05. In view of the above, AO was justified in treating the cash payment of Rs. 4,21,000/- as appellant's unexplained investment u/s 69 in AY 2004-05. The addition is confirmed." 4.1 Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides. We find the assessee in his statement recorded u/s.132(4) has offered the amount of Rs.4,21,000/- as his income from undisclosed courses. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. The addition made by Assessing Officer and sustained by Ld. CIT(A) be quashed". 10. After hearing both the sides we find the assessee in response to notice u/s.153A filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.2,87,860/- which was also shown in his original return of income filed u/s.139 on 31-10-2005. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s.57 amounting to Rs.6 lakhs towards bad debt on account of loans given to Sri Satish Manchanda on 30-08-2002 relating to A.Y.2003-04. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain as to why this deduction u/s.57 is allowable against the interest income on fixed deposits. In absence of any explanation given b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The claim of the appellant for deduction of Rs.6 lac u/s.57 of the Act is untenable. While on the other hand the appellant files profit as per the provisions of sec.44AD of the Act, on the other hand he claims deduction u/s.57 of the Act against the income of interest on fixed deposits. Since sec.28 to 43C of the Act are taken care of while showing profit of 8% on the total turnover/gross receipts u/s.44AD, appellant has chosen to claim deduction u/s.57 of the Act to circumvent the provisions of Act. The AO was justified in rejecting the claim of the appellant. Addition of Rs.6 lac is confirmed". 13. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 14. We have considered the rival arguments made by both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
