9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw the Assessing Officer erred in making additions of Rs. 15,24,175/- on account of difference between 26-AS & return of income. Therefore it is prayed that this addition is deleted. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the entire cost of improvement due to non-availability of documents. The assessee has taken a loan for the purpose of improvement. Therefore it is prayed that cost of improvement should be allowed at least up to the amount of loan taken. 3. The brief facts concerning Ground No.1 is that the assessee was running proprietorship under the name and style of Balaji Engineering Construction Company. During the relevant assessment year 2011-12 (FY 2010-11), t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee Mr.Anujkumar Tiwari contended that the difference in the receipts appearing in the financial statement as compared to Statement - 26-AS is on account of mistake made by the parties while putting quoting PAN of proprietary-concern incorrectly owing to confusion prevailing due to take over of proprietorship concern by the Pvt.Ltd.Co. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has time and again pointed out before the lower authorities that the aforesaid receipts have been included in the return of income of the Pvt.Ltd.Co. Thus, the aforesaid receipts have already been subjected to tax in the hands of the Pvt.Ltd.Co. Merely because TDS has been claimed by the assessee as per credit received which was not claimed by the Pvt.Ltd. Co., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the outside parties who have sourced the differential receipts. Under the circumstances, we consider it just and expedient to remitting the matter back to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication of the issue in accordance with law after examining the attendant facts for rightful taxation of differential receipts in question. The assessee shall be at liberty to establish before the AO by corroborative evidences that the impugned differential receipts have been correctly taxed in the hands of the Pvt.Ltd.Co. as a rightful claimant of the impugned receipts. In terms of above direction, the issue is set aside and restored to the file of the AO for its determination afresh. As a result, Ground No.1 of assessee's appeal is allowed for statis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the extent of quantum of loan i.e. Rs. 4,98,000/-. 11. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, submitted that the assessee failed to produce any cogent evidence in the form of bills, vouchers etc. to prove the actual incurring of cost of improvement as claimed. 12. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that in support of the cost of improvement so claimed, the assessee has failed to adduce any proper evidence. The assessee has only relied on its claim on the basis of two loans of Rs. 3 lacs and Rs. 1,98,000/- as noted above. However, there is no evidence on record to establish that the aforesaid loans were actually spent on improvement of house. There is nothing on record to suggest that any payment was made through banking channels ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
