9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s taken in the profit and loss account in business and Rs. 49,183/- was taken in the income from other sources and included in Rs. 59,183/-.Thus, bank interest of Rs. 1,01,751/- was accounted for in the income of the assessee. It was, however, held that since the entire income of Rs. 1,01,751/- was interest on FDRs and no plausible reason has been adduced to break the interest into two parts, showing one part as business income and another part as income from other sources. Therefore, the addition was made. The AO on examination of the issue found the interest was received on six FDRs, details of which are at page 3 of the assessment order and only Rs. 35,739/- was disclosed by the assessee in the return of income and balance amount of Rs. 66,012/- was not disclosed in the return. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was confirmed. 4. On consideration of the submissions, we are of the view, the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the AO. The ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out to the computation of income (PB-2), in which the income from business was shown at Rs. 67,310/- which includes the bank interest of Rs. 44,763/- which is supported by profit and loss acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it of Rs. 1,26,000/- in capital account. The source was, therefore, explained through PPF account and sale of property. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition because there is neither any cash withdrawal of Rs. 1,26,000/- from any bank account nor there is any cheques transfer and the assessee failed to substantiate the issue and therefore, the addition was confirmed. 7. On consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view, this issue also requires reconsideration partly at the level of the AO. Copy of account of assessee is filed at page 5 of the paper book in which on 15.03.2009 and 21.03.2009, there are credit to the capital account of assessee in a sum of Rs. 26,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- respectively. The ld. counsel for the assessee referred to PB 9(7) to show that from the joint account, cheques No. 205279 was credited to the personal account of assessee of Rs. 26,000/- and similarly, Rs. 1,00,000/- was transferred through cheques No. 205280, but the joint account statement filed at PB 9(7) shows the amount of this cheques was Rs. 631/- only. The ld. counsel for the assessee referred to PB-12 to show that there was a cross entry by clearing from ICICI Bank having entr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 400360 of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- was transferred from account of Mrs. Veena Khokha and from her bank account (PB-14(2), it was shown that the amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- was transferred on 04.11.2008 and similarly on 21.03.2009, there was a transfer of Rs. 1,00,000/- through cheques. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that no proper opportunity was given to explain this issue. Considering these bank accounts, we are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the AO. We accordingly set aside the orders of the authorities below and restore this issue to the file of AO with direction to re-decide this issue in the light of copies of bank account produced. He shall give sufficient reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 10. On ground No.5, the assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 1,75,000/- out of total addition of Rs. 9,33,000/-. On scrutiny of the statement produced by the assessee of SB a/c of HDFC bank, the AO observed that Rs. 9,33,000/- was deposited in the account of the assessee by cash credit and transfers. The AO noted that the assessee did not produce any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that only point of dispute before him is cost of acquisition of house sold. The assessee did not have copy of purchase deed of the land, hence, the dispute over the land cost taken by the AO at Rs. 48,000/- and that shown by the assessee at Rs. 62,000/- cannot be decided in favour of the assessee. Besides, the assessee failed to adduce any proof regarding the construction cost of such house before the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A). In the absence of any evidence on record, the estimate of AO of total cost at Rs. 4,48,000/- was found justified. As a result, the long term capital gain of Rs. 17,33,960/- worked out by the AO was confirmed. 13. On consideration of the rival submissions, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of ld. authorities below. The ld. counsel for the assessee admitted that the assessee did not have any evidence to prove any investment made in cost of construction in the property in dispute. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence of cost of construction, no further relief could be given to the assessee. The ld. counsel for the assessee, however, produced a duplicate copy of the valuation report (unsigned) and requested that the same may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
