9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 41,13,000/-.The full addition to the amount of ₹ 41,13,000/- u/s 69 doesn’t seems justifiable because the assessee was having only 1/3 share therefore, the addition to the extent of 1/3 share of ₹ 41,13,000/- is hereby ordered to be confirmed - Decided partly in favor of assessee. Disallowance of interest - Held that:- The figure of deposit and interest paid has duly discussed by CIT(A) in his order. Nothing distinguishable facts has been placed on record. Even, at the time of argument nothing was argued that which figure has wrongly being taken into consideration while declined the claim of the assessee regarding interest to the tune of ₹ 3,34,000/-. In view of the said circumstances we are of the view that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hout any evidence to prove that payment was actually made to the landlord and without appreciating the fact that the landlord had confirmed of not receiving any payment for granting the tenancy rights. (2) On the facts and in law and without prejudice to ground no. 1, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of full amount of ₹ 41,13,000 in the hands of appellant, on protective basis, without appreciating the fact that the tenancy rights were jointly acquired by three persons ie. Appellant, Kirtilal M Shah and Amarchand P Shah and only RT-1,000, being appellant's share can be assessed in his hands. (3) On the facts and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of interest paid to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee explained that the assessee did not purchase the immovable property but took Room No. 8 and 9 of 6th Floor of Phonix Building, S.V.P. Road, Mumbai alongwith two others on monthly rent of ₹ 940/-. An amount of ₹ 41,13,000/- was not the purchase consideration but market value of property taken for payment of stamp duty. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the investment of ₹ 41,13,000/-, therefore, the same was treated as unexplained u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961 hence added to the income of the assessee. The assessee also claimed the interest to the tune of ₹ 40,54,593/- and bank charges of ₹ 24,483/- against the interest income. Since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at an amount of ₹ 41,13,000/- was paid to acquire the tenancy right in the property mentioned above. The tenancy agreement is on the record which lies at Page No.22 to 43 of the paper book. The said agreement speaks about the fact that the assessee alongwith Kirtilal, M. Shah and Amarchand P Shah purchased the said property to the extent of 1/3 share each. The assessee failed to explain the source of the payment to the tune of ₹ 41,13,000/-. However, the share of the assessee was only to the extent of 1/3 in the said property. No evidence was produced before the AO as well as before the CIT(A) for explaining the source of payment of ₹ 41,13,000/-. Nothing has produced before us. The full addition to the amount of ₹ 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvest in NSC/ KVP cannot be completely denied. Moreover, the contention of the appellant that he paid interest @6.50% only on ICICI Bank OD (as against @8% earned by him) is supported by the aforesaid letter of ICICI bank. The appellant has also earned iterest on other loans given to various parties. The aggregate interest received by the appellant from various investments exceeds the interest paid. Given all these facts on record, it would be difficult to justify the disallowance of interest paid on OD accounts in i) entirety, while taxing the interest earned on investments made out of these accounts. he appellant has shown investment in NSC/ KVP as on 31.03.2005 at ₹ 201.33 + 146.24 = ₹ 347.57 lakhs, which reconciles with afor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vailed from such accounts. In view of the above, the appellant gets relief from disallowance of interest paid to the extent of ₹ 37,20,593/- and from bank charges of ₹ 25,483/- in full. Therefore, the grounds No.3 4 of the appeal are partly allowed. 6. On appraisal of the above mentioned finding, we noticed that the figure of deposit and interest paid has duly discussed by CIT(A) in his order. Nothing distinguishable facts has been placed on record. Even, at the time of argument nothing was argued that which figure has wrongly being taken into consideration while declined the claim of the assessee regarding interest to the tune of ₹ 3,34,000/-. In view of the said circumstances we are of the view that the CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
