9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 880X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 69 from mother-in-law and from father - Held that:- The finding of the AO and the ld. CIT(A) that there was no drawing during the five days prior to the date of gift and mere cash withdrawal by the donor long back i.e. 120 days cannot make the act probable. Such reasonings by both the authorities below cannot convert the facts of genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. In such circumstances and facts of the case we are of the view that the assessee has explained the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions and the AO was not justified in treating the same as income of the assessee. Accordingly the order of the ld. CIT(A) is reversed. - Decided in favour of assessee. Undisclosed investment u/s 69 - difference in capital arising out of audit and revised balance sheet - Held that:- The ld. Counsel of the assesee before us tried to explain the difference and the reconciliation and prayed to examine the differences between the revised balance sheet and audited balance sheet by us. Prima facie as appears from the order of ld. CIT(A) the assessee has stated to have reconciled the differences but the same has neither been examined by the AO in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revised accounts. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the order of the Income Tax Officer by not accepting the gift of ₹ 40,000 received from Mother-in-law and making an addition of the said amount under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as undisclosed. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the order of the Income Tax Officer by not accepting the gift of ₹ 60,000 received from Father and making an addition of the said amount under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as undisclosed. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the order of the Income Tax Officer by adding a part of the alleged difference in capital i.e. ₹ 11,20,339 as undisclosed investment of the assessee under section 69 of the Income Tax Act. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the order of the Income Tax Officer by treating the investment in furniture and fixture amounting to ₹ 1,64,233 as undisclosed income. 6. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of the entire chamber maintenance of ₹ 37,782, printing and stationery of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. But no defect has been pointed by the AO. Under such circumstances and facts of the case AO is not justified in invoking the provision of section 145(3) of the Act by simply calculating the differences between the revised balance sheet and the balance sheet in the audited accounts attached with the return of income and adding the same to the income of assessee. Therefore under such circumstances of the case this action of the AO for rejecting the books of account only on account of computation difference between the revised balance sheet and the audited balance sheet is no basis for invoking the provision of section 145(3) of the Act. Accordingly the same action of the ld. ,CIT(A) is directed to be reversed. Thus ground No.1 of the assessee is allowed. 5. As regards ground nos.2 and 3 the assessee received gifts of ₹ 40,000/- from mother-in-law and ₹ 60,000/- from his father. The assessee submitted the affidavit of Smt. Pratima Bhattacharya, mother-in-law of the assessee and also similar affidavit of Shri Sachindra Mohan Bhattacharya, the father of assessee and written submissions submitted along with the affidavit and the bank statements. The AO not being satisfi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Counsel of the assesee before us tried to explain the difference and the reconciliation and prayed to examine the differences between the revised balance sheet and audited balance sheet by us. Prima facie as appears from the order of ld. CIT(A) the assessee has stated to have reconciled the differences but the same has neither been examined by the AO in the right perspective nor by the ld. CIT(A). It will be in the interest of justice if it is set aside the matter to the file of AO, who will examine the issue in the right perspective being the differences between the revised balance sheet and the audited balance sheet and if the explanation is found satisfactory the addition may be deleted. The assessee may be afforded adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall cooperate in the assessment proceedings and AO is directed to act accordingly. Thus ground no.4 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 10. As regards ground no.5 AO made addition of ₹ 1,64,233/- in respect of furniture and fixture for personal purposes. Before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee submitted explanation which was sent to the AO and the report was sought. After considering the expl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
