9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1014X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so a fact that the entries made in the loose paper have not been corroborated with any other material. There is no dispute that the money lending business was carried on by assessee’s spouse and it has been inherited by the assessee. Further, these transactions have been accepted to have been made through a broker and the receipt of ₹ 2.00 lakhs on 6.6.2000 supports the contentions of the assessee the amount of ₹ 22.00 lakhs were deployed prior to 1.4.2000. This is also supported by the fact that an amount of ₹ 1,08,000/- was shown as adjusted against the amount of ₹ 2.00 lakhs, meaning thereby the amount of ₹ 1,08,000/- pertain to the period prior to 6.6.2000, in which case, the corresponding principal amount of ₹ 12.00 lakhs should have been available prior to 1.4.2000. Further, it is seen that the broker Shri Chottu has deployed the amount of ₹ 10.00 lakhs on various dates and he has been working from the firm R.Ravinder & Co. also. Hence it is seen the loans were given as and when there was a demand and hence the claim of the assessee that the amount of ₹ 10.00 lakhs was also available with the assessee prior to 1.4.2000 is, in ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are directed against the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-38, Mumbai. Since most of the issues urged in these appeals are common in nature and also arise out of common set of facts, these appeals were heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience. 2. The facts relating to the case are set out in brief. The husband of the assessee had carried on money lending business under the name R.Ravinder Co. and the same was inherited by the assessee after the demise of her husband. The revenue carried out search and seizure operations in the hands of the assessee on 05-10-2007 consequent to the search operations conducted in the case of Mukesh Choksey group. During the course of search operations, the assessee made a disclosure of ₹ 60.00 lakhs, which was later enhanced to ₹ 72.11 lakhs and the same was allocated between various years. However, at the time of filing of return of income, the assessee prepared a profit and loss account for each of the years and offered income as per the same, which was found to be less than the revised additional income declared by the assessee. Hence for assessment years 2003-04 to 2007-08, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vanced to various parties from the bank account of M/s R.R.Ravinder Co. The amount of ₹ 8.5 1acs was duly refunded by the parties before 31.3.2001. However, no interest was paid. The total interest amount worked out for the period of 9 months was ₹ 1,14,750/- which was to be received from Mr. Chhotu. These details are also stated on page 4A. (i) The second figure of ₹ 67,080/- is the interest working for the period from 29.4.2000 to Dec.2000 on an amount of ₹ 10 lacs advanced on various dates through Chhotu. The entire amount of ₹ 10 lacs was not paid at one time and was paid on different dates. So detailed working for the period has been made on page 4A. The interest figure is ₹ 67,080/- which was to be received as per details on page 4A. (ii) Again figure of ₹ 1,08,000/- is the interest on ₹ 12 lacs for 6 months up to Dec.2000 which is also as per details on page 4A. (iii) Further there is an interest of ₹ 12 lacs from January to December is ₹ 2,16,000/- which is for the period from 1.1.2001 to 31.12.2001. Only the months have been written, year has not been stated. Since the amount of interest on ₹ 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,89,830 Interest of ₹ 12 Lakhs from Jan to Dec. 2,16,000 Interest of ₹ 10 Lakhs from Jan to Dec 1,20,000 6,25,830 From the above details the following inferences are drawn: i) Principal amounts of ₹ 1.5 lakhs , 6.5 lakhs, 2 lakhs are given as cash loan on 29.04.2000, 05.06.2000, 24.07.2000 respectively (1st day of interest period). Hence the total amount principal component of cash loan given comes to Rs, 10 lakhs. ii) It is specifically mentioned as under: 108000 Interest of 12 lakhs paid till Dec. 2000 67080 Interest of 10 lakhs paid till Dec. 2000 175080 It means that the assessee has given cash loan of ₹ 12 lakhs on which she received interest component of ₹ 1,08,000/- cash loan given of ₹ 10 lakhs on which she received ₹ 67,0801- as interest. iii) The total interest component shown is ₹ 6,25,830/- which need ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther submitted that the assessee has carried out these finance transactions through a broker named Chhottu and he has noted down the prospective interest income in the later part of the loose paper. Accordingly, the Ld A.R submitted that the tax authorities are not justified in assessing the amount of ₹ 3,36,000/- as income of the assessee. 8. We heard Ld D.R on this issue. A careful perusal of the noting made in the loose paper shows that the interest amount of ₹ 67,080/- and ₹ 1,08,000/- pertain to a period ending December, 2000. Accordingly, we are of the view that there is merit in the contention of the assessee that the period of Jan Dec stated in the later part of the loose paper should relate to the calendar year 2001. Since the assessee is following cash system of accounting and since these figures have been claimed to have been noted by the broker, there is merit in the submission of the assessee that the broker has noted down the prospective interest income of the calendar year 2001. Accordingly, we are of the view that the above said amount of ₹ 3,36,000/- could not be assessed in AY 2001-02, since there is no evidence to show that the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hs on various dates and he has been working from the firm R.Ravinder Co. also. Hence it is seen the loans were given as and when there was a demand and hence the claim of the assessee that the amount of ₹ 10.00 lakhs was also available with the assessee prior to 1.4.2000 is, in our view, finds merit. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition of ₹ 22.00 lakhs. 12. The next issue urged by the assessee relates to the addition of ₹ 36,000/- confirmed by the Ld CIT(A). We notice that the same relates to estimation of interest income and on perusal of the order of Ld CIT(A), we are of the view that the same does not call for interference. Accordingly, we confirm the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue. 13. We shall now take up the appeal filed by the revenue, wherein the addition relating to bad debts claim of ₹ 15,68,000/- was deleted by Ld CIT(A). The Ld A.R submitted that the tax effect involved in the appeal of the revenue is less than ₹ 10.00 lakhs and hence the revenue is precluded from pursuing this appeal in view of the Circular No.21/2015 dated 10-12-2015 issued by the CBDT. Even o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition in all the above said years. 17. We heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. It is a well settled proposition of law that the disclosures made in the sworn statement taken from the assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act may be used as evidence against the assessee. It is also settled proposition that the said presumption is a rebuttable presumption, i.e., an assessee is entitled to show that the disclosure made by him is wrong. In this regard, we may mainly refer to the decision rendered in the case of Pullangode Rubber Products Co. Ltd Vs. State of Kerala (91 ITR 18) and Nagubhai ammal (AIR 1956 SC 593) In the instant case, the assessee has rebutted the presumption by preparing the profit and loss account on the basis of the documents found during the course of search. It is a matter of fact that the tax authorities did not find any fault in the statement so prepared by the assessee. Accordingly, we are of the view that the profit and loss account prepared by the assessee cannot be ignored, since the same has been prepared on the basis of evidences found during the course of search. Since the disclosure made by the assessee has been rebutted by showing that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee. The assessee produced a cash book before the AO, in which it is shown that a sum of ₹ 28.50 lakhs has been received as gift from Parvinder Singh Bhatia. Since the said receipt is not supported by any document, the AO proposed to assess the same u/s 68 of the Act. However, he did not add the same to the total income of the assessee. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld CIT(A) noted this fact and hence asked the assessee to furnish the explanations with regard to the gift. The assessee submitted that the receipt of gift is supported by the seized papers. The assessee explained that a flat located at Lokahandwala complex, Andheri (W) was owned by her father in law. After the death of the father in law, the said property was inherited by the assessee s husband, assessee s mother in law and brother in law. Later the property was sold for a sum of ₹ 61.00 lakhs by brother in law of the assessee. It was stated that the assessee also claimed her right over the property and sale consideration. After a family settlement, she received a sum of ₹ 28.50 lakhs from her brother in law, who had sold the property. The sale transaction was done by her brother in l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e entries made therein relates to a property transaction only. 25. When a specific query was put to the Ld A.R about the the capital gains taxation, the Ld A.R submitted that the same needs to be addressed separately in view of the dispute between the parties about the ownership. He further submitted that he has been instructed that the transaction did not result in any capital gain in view of the indexation benefits and cost of transfer/improvements. He submitted that this fact was submitted in the letter furnished before Ld CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee received the amount on a family settlement and hence the same constitutes capital receipt in the hands of the assessee. 26. We have heard the parties and perused the record. We notice that the limited issue urged before us is about the receipt of ₹ 28.50 lakhs by the assessee from her brother in law. We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has presumed that the property has been sold by the brother in law of the assessee and further observed that the details of return of income filed by the brother in law was not produced. Hence he proceeded to hold that the gift amount of ₹ 28.50 lakhs is assessable as income of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
