9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 5 lakhs is a separate one and he made an addition with regard to loan and not with regard to gift. The fact remains is that for the assessment year 2006-07, what was given by the assessee is only a sum of ₹ 5 lakhs either as loan or gift to his son Shri R. Ganesan. Therefore, there is no necessity for the Assessing Officer to take the transaction as two independent transactions. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the transaction of ₹ 5 lakhs is only one transaction. Therefore, the Assessing Officer may not be justified in treating the transaction between the assessee and his son in the assessment year 2006-07 as two transactions and making an addition of ₹ 5 lakhs. Since the transaction is only one transact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 7 lakhs made for the assessment year 2007-08. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos.2598 & 2599/Mds/2014 - - - Dated:- 4-9-2015 - SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT ORDER Both the appeals of the assessee are directed against the common order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli, dated 21.08.2014 and pertain to assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08. Therefore, I heard both the appeals together and disposing of the same by this common order. 2. Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that there was a search in the premises of the assessee on 09.11.2006. After the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer found that the assessee never stated that he received back the sum of ₹ 7 lakhs in the same year. Similarly, the Assessing Officer also found that the assessee s son admitted the fact of receipt of loan. However, he found that the assessee s son has not stated that he has returned back the loan taken from his father. Therefore, the Assessing Officer found that the explanation of the assessee was afterthought. Therefore, he made an addition of ₹ 7 lakhs for the assessment year 2007-08. According to the Ld. counsel, the fact that the assessee gave the amount either as loan or as gift is not in dispute. The Assessing Officer doubts about the return of the money by the assessee s son. According to the Ld. counsel, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .R., the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee. Referring to the loan of ₹ 7 lakhs for the assessment year 2007-08, the Assessing Officer came to a conclusion that it is not the case of the assessee that he received back the amount during the year under consideration. It is also not the case of the assessee that his son Shri R. Ganesan showed in his return a sum of ₹ 7 lakhs during the year under consideration. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has rightly found that the explanation of the assessee that he received back the money from his son during the year under consideration is afterthought. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has rightly made the addition of ₹ 5 lakhs for the assessment year 2006-07 and &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dition with regard to loan and not with regard to gift. The fact remains is that for the assessment year 2006-07, what was given by the assessee is only a sum of ₹ 5 lakhs either as loan or gift to his son Shri R. Ganesan. Therefore, there is no necessity for the Assessing Officer to take the transaction as two independent transactions. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the transaction of ₹ 5 lakhs is only one transaction. Therefore, the Assessing Officer may not be justified in treating the transaction between the assessee and his son in the assessment year 2006-07 as two transactions and making an addition of ₹ 5 lakhs. Since the transaction is only one transaction, this Tribunal is of the considered opinio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
