9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 587X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO. In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection by the assessee with respect to the direction to the AO by the CIT(A) is futile exercise to be conducted for the AO in view of the assessment of 50% share of the co-owners has not been brought on record in the specific accounting therein was submitted by the assessee at the time of assessment. The amounts shown as investment on behalf of the mother has been taxed in the hands of the assesee would have resulted in double taxation in the impugned assessment in so far as the disallowance or addition made u/s 69 was not existing. The amount of investment whether in the flat or with the mother, who is co owner had been correlated by the CIT(A), therefore was rig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explanation that the assessee's mother being 50% co-owner was not able to pay the whole amount was paid by the assessee cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee, in so far as the mother refunded a sum of Rs.15 lakhs which is accepted by the AO. However, the addition was appealed before the First Appellate Authority when it was submitted that the ld. AO has considered the total payment from the assessee as Rs.66,65,976/- consisting of Rs.Rs.33,71,805/- paid during the eyar 2008-09 and Rs.33,94,171/- paid during the year 2009-2010 and as the total payment is more than the total amount of investments actually made against the flat, the excess amount of Rs.18,65,190/- has been considered as undisclosed investment. 3. However, the payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year under reference the assessee, Ms.Avani Agarwal (assessee) had purchased a flat jointly with her mother, Smt.Manisha Agarwal. Total cost of flat was Rs.98,01,572/-. Appellant's 50% share was Rs.49,00,786/- which was paid by her and reflected in Balance sheet as at 31-03-09 (page no.4 of paper book). As her mother had no requisite funds to pay full Rs.49,00,786/- towards her 50% share, appellant paid Rs.18,65,190/- on her mother's behalf and also paid registration charges Rs.32640/- on her mother's behalf. Out of this total amount of Rs.397830/- appellant paid on her mother's behalf Smt. Manisha Agarwal had refunded Rs.15.00 lakhs on 28-03-2009 to Avani Agarwal. Thus a balance sum of Rs.3,97,830/- remained to be received from her mother ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Counsel therefore has rightly pointed out that the direction was not proper in so far as the factual facts as brought on record by the AO was dealt with in detail and not to be split for considering otherwise the amount of interest as not shown but this has been accepted by the AO. In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection by the assessee with respect to the direction to the AO by the ld. CIT(A) is futile exercise to be conducted for the AO in view of the assessment of 50% share of the co-owners has not been brought on record in the specific accounting therein was submitted by the assessee at the time of assessment. In other words, the amounts shown as investment on behalf of the mother has been taxed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
