9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee has no control over the issue of the certificate by the REC Ltd. In view of above, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) in this regard and the same is sustained. - Decided against revenue Addition on low household withdrawals - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Withdrawal of ₹ 10,000/- per month for house-hold expenditure cannot be said to be adequate or reasonable withdrawal, though the estimate by the Assessing Officer at ₹ 1,00,000/- per month is also excessive. In our opinion, it would meet the ends of justice if the house-hold expenditure is estimated at ₹ 25,000/- per month, i.e., ₹ 3,00,000/- per annum. Therefore, after considering the withdrawal of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at of Assessing Officer. - Decided in favour of revenue - ITA No. 1757/Ahd/2011 - - - Dated:- 14-8-2015 - SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Revenue : Shri Dinesh Singh, Sr. D.R. For The Assessee : Shri M.K. Patel, A.R. ORDER PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Valsad dated 31.03.2011 for Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The first ground of the Revenue s appeal reads as under:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 16 lacs made by disallowing deduction u/s 54EC of the I.T. Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod of six months from the date of transfer of the assets. I have carefully considered the facts of the instant case and the ratio of the judgment of the said Bombay HC. There is no dispute that the cheques were issued on 03.01.2008 and debited in the appellant s a/c on 04.01.2008. This was within a period of six months from the date of transfer of the assets. Therefore, respectfully following the above referred HC decision, the AO is directed to allow the benefit u/s 54EC because the date of investment being the date on which payment was made and received by the REC Ltd as held by the Hon ble HC. This ground is allowed. 4. After considering the facts of the case and arguments of both the sides, we entirely agree with the order of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, it would meet the ends of justice if the house-hold expenditure is estimated at ₹ 25,000/- per month, i.e., ₹ 3,00,000/- per annum. Therefore, after considering the withdrawal of ₹ 1,20,000/- per month, the addition is sustained at ₹ 1,80,000/-. 8. Before we take up another ground, we would like to deal with the few arguments raised by the ld. Counsel for the assessee while considering this ground of appeal. It was contended by him that the withdrawal is more than the withdrawal by the assessee in the immediately preceding year. However, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has not shown that the assessment of the earlier year was completed u/s 143(3) and in that assessment the issue of reasonableness or otherwise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 48, capital gain is to be computed on the full value of the consideration received or accrued as a result of transfer of the capital asset. Admittedly, the full value of the consideration accrued was ₹ 32,00,000/-. Payment to Ms. Maya Garg, Proprietor of Shree Balaji Trading Co. was given as per the desire of the assessee. That, merely because the assessee could receive only the part money from Ms. Maya Garg would be no ground for reducing the full value of the consideration for the purpose of section 48. We, therefore, reverse the order of the CIT(A) in this regard and restore that of Assessing Officer. Thus, Ground No.3 of the Revenue s appeal is allowed. 11. In the result, Revenue s appeal is partly allowed. Order pron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
