9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 2,50,000 out of total addition sustained by the CIT(A) of ₹ 3,35,000. Insofar as balance amount, though the assessee claims to have source, failed to file necessary evidence to explain cash deposit on various dates. Therefore, we sustain the balance amount of ₹ 85,000 as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. Enhancement made towards low household expenses - Held that:- We do not find any merits in the arguments of the assessee for the reason that when an assessee is having a total income of ₹ 1,30,69,630 as income, an expdenditure of ₹ 24,000 per annum for his household expenses cannot be relied upon. As rightly observed by the CIT(A), the assessee is residing in posh are of Mumbai City for which ₹ 2,000 pm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion officer the sale consideration by invoking the provision of the section \ ' SOC of the income Tax Act, 1961. It is prayed that the addition on account of alleged difference in the sale value fair market value of ₹ 10,17,900/- may be deleted. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the part of the addition on account of cash deposited into bank U/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is prayed that the addition on account of such cash deposit of ₹ 3,35,000/- may be deleted. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in making an enhancement of ₹ 18,00,000 by way of fresh addition U/s 69C of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 on 20-07-2010 declaring total income of ₹ 1,30,69,630. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. In response to notices, the authorized representative of the assessee appeared from time to time and furnished the details, as called for. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 22-02-2013 determining total income at ₹ 1,80,33,340, by making addition towards difference in sale consideration as per section 50C in respect of sale of property, unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), assessee h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h is quite low compared to his status and income declared by the assessee for the relevant assessment year. Therefore, considering the status of the assessee and also the fact that he is residing in a posh area in the costliest city of Mumbai directed the AO to estimate household expenses at ₹ 1,50,000 per month and accordingly made additions of Rsw.18 lakhs u/s 69C of the I.T. Ac6, 1961. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The assessee has challenged additions sustained by the CIT(A) towards recomputation of long term capital gain by adopting sale consideration as per the provisions of section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. During the course of hearing the Ld.AR for the assessee submitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al available on record, we find that the assessee has explained cash deposit of ₹ 2,50,000 on 07-05- 2009 out of opening cash balance brought forward from previous financial year. We find tht opening cash balance of ₹ 3,17,000 has been explained as out of cash withdrawal from Citi Bank in February, 2011. We further observe that these bank accounts are declared in the regular return filed for the relevant assessment year. Therefore, we are of the view that the assessee has filed necessary evidences to explain the source of cash deposit for ₹ 2,50,000; hence, we direct the AO to delete additions of ₹ 2,50,000 out of total addition sustained by the CIT(A) of ₹ 3,35,000. Insofar as balance amount, though the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 24,000 per annum for his household expenses cannot be relied upon. As rightly observed by the CIT(A), the assessee is residing in posh are of Mumbai City for which ₹ 2,000 pm is not at all sufficient to manage his household expenses. At the same time, the estimate made by the Ld.CIT(A) is also on higher side. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the assessee is a member of joint family, a reasonable estimate towards household expenses would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we direct the AO to estimate ₹ 30,000 per month toward household expenses of the assessee. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
