9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 766/Mds/2015, CO No. 81/Mds/2015 - - - Dated:- 1-1-2016 - N. R. S. Ganesan, JM And A. Mohan Alankamony, AM For the Appellant : Shri A B Koli, JCIT For the Respondent : Shri Philip George, Adv ORDER Per N. R. S. Ganesan, Judicial Member This appeal of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Tiruchirapalli, dated 17.12.2014 for assessment year 2006-07. 2. The first ground of appeal is with regard to addition of ₹ 10 lakhs. 3. Shri A B Koli, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee claimed before the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,953/- towards interest accrued to the assessee on the difference between the fixed deposit of ₹ 1,46,53,641/- and the matured amount of ₹ 1,51,35,594/-. According to the ld. DR, since the addition of ₹ 10 lakhs was added in the hands of the assessee, the interest accrued has also to be added in the hands of the assessee. 5. On the contrary, Shri Philip George, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee maintains only one bank account for all transactions of the entire family members. Therefore, the deposits and withdrawals made in the bank do not represent the transaction of the assessee alone. According to the ld. Counsel, the assessee does not own any fixed deposit in any bank. The ld. Counsel further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. The assessee claims that only one bank account was maintained which reflects the transaction of all the family members. This fact is not disputed by the Revenue. The only contention of the ld. DR is that in the earlier proceedings the assessee claimed that no loan was borrowed from any one during the year under consideration. However, now the assessee claims that he received a sum of ₹ 10 lakhs from his son. The ld. Counsel contends that the assessee never claimed before the Assessing Officer either in the original proceedings or in the present proceedings that he received any loan from anyone. From the order of the CIT(A) it appears that a sum of ₹ 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
