9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the balance amount should be taxed in the year under consideration, to avoid double taxation – Decided in favour of assessee. Unexplained cash credits u/s 68 – payment of school fees of children was made by assessee’s mother-in-law - A copy of the confirmation and passport was submitted along with the reply – Held that:- Section 68 is not applicable as nothing has been found credited in the books of the assesse - The above confirmation does not mention the amount which has been paid by Mrs. Claude M. Grout nor she has given any details of her bank account - the mode of payments has also not been mentioned - Assessee has not filed any other corroborative evidence to substantiate the claim that the payment of school fees has been made by his mother-in-law - the assessee has failed to discharge the onus cast upon him – Decided against assessee. Disallowance of interest on loan – Amount borrowed for personal usage and purchase of some assets - Held that:- The assessee being a film star has to maintain a certain set of standard of living for which he may require money from time to time - Assuming that the assessee has borrowed money to purchase luxurious car, that would justify ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis for the addition at the most could be the amount received during the year which was not offered for taxation and not the entire advances shown in the balance-sheet as the same comprises of advances of earlier year also. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was convinced with the alternative plea of the assessee and accordingly confirmed the addition of Rs. 56,58,620 and gave part relief to the assessee. Both parties are in appeal against this findings of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Before us, learned counsel for the assessee reiterated that since the assessee has been offering the income in the year of the release of the film and since the same practice has been followed since last so many years which have been accepted by the Department, therefore, the same should be accepted for the year under consideration also. In alternative, learned counsel argued that out of the advances received during the year under consideration, the assessee has already offered Rs. 53,52,000 as his income therefore only the balance should be added. Learned counsel further drew our attention at page 1 of the paper book which is the summary of advances receiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year under consideration the assessee has received Rs.1,10,10,062 out of which he has already offered Rs. 53,52,000 in the computation of income. The counsel pointed out that the assessee has also offered Rs. 27,58,062 in the assessment year 2006-07 and Rs. 2,50,000 in the assessment year 2007-08 out of the advance of Rs. 1,10,10,062. In our humble opinion this issue needs further verification at the assessment stage, we therefore restore this issue back to the files of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to verify the claim of the assessee that he has offered out of the total advance of Rs. 1,10,10,062, Rs. 27,58,062 in the assessment year 2006-07 and Rs. 2,50,000 in the assessment year 2007-08 and if found correct only the balance amount should be taxed in the year under consideration, to avoid double taxation of the same income. This will also cover the decision of the Delhi Bench in the case of Asst. CIT v. Fox Mondal Co., in I. T. A. 3377/Del/2006 relied upon by the assessee. In the result both parties appeal on this ground is allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No. 2 in the assessee's appeal relates to the addition of Rs.16,44,426 made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bited at pages 42 and 43 of the paper book. The confirmation received is as under : To whom it may concern I, Mrs. Claude M. Grout, a Belgium national holding passport number EE788193 and residing at 163 Baron de Gieylaan, de Pinte, Belgium, hereby do confirm that I have arrange to pay the school fees of my grand children, Jai Shroff and Krishna Shroff for the year 2004-05. Yours truly, Mrs. Claude M. Grout On a careful consideration of the above confirmation, we find that it does not even mention the amount which has been paid by Mrs. Claude M. Grout nor she has given any details of her bank account, further, the mode of payments has also not been mentioned. Even the assessee has not filed any other corroborative evidence to substantiate his claim that the payment of school fees has been made by his mother-in-law. Even before us the assessee could not supply the copy of the bank statements from which the amount has been transmitted to India. But the fact is that payment of Rs.16,44,426 has been made to the school therefore it is on the assessee to explain the sources from which the payments have been made. Considering the facts in totality, in our humble opinion, the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hout charging any interest, therefore findings of the Assessing Officer should be confirmed. Per contra, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has to maintain a certain life style in his profession for which at times he has to borrow money. Learned counsel further pointed out that the amount has been borrowed in the earlier years and not during the year under consideration therefore no disallowance should be made. We have considered the arguments from both parties. We find that the money has been borrowed in the earlier years. Although the Assessing Officer has mentioned that the amount has been borrowed for personal usage but has not brought any material on record to substantiate his claim. Further, the assessee being a film star has to maintain a certain set of standard of living for which he may require money from time to time. Even if assuming that the assessee has borrowed money to purchase luxurious car, that would justify looking to the nature of profession of the assessee. Considering all these facts into totality, we do not find any merit in the submissions of the Departmental representative, findings of the learned Commissioner of Income-t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
