9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 801X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccount by giving narration as Agricultural income . However in the return of income, net agricultural income was shown only at ₹ 15,000. As the assessee could not submit any explanation about the source of the remaining amount of ₹ 19,000, the Assessing Officer made addition for the said sum. However, the claim regarding of agricultural income of ₹ 15,000 was accepted by including such amount in the total income only for rate purposes. The learned CIT(A) upheld the addition at ₹ 34,000. 3. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record it is observed that the assessee failed to lead any evidence regarding the remaining amount of ₹ 19,000 credited to his capital account. We, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... household expenses and also the composition of family members. No reply was furnished for a long time against the reminder so issued. The assessee s counsel vide letter dated 23.12.1999 did not offer any explanation except filing details and break up of personal withdrawal. From this statement it was observed by the A.O. that the total withdrawals were to the tune of ₹ 7.31 lakh. As against that the amount of income-tax paid and LIP payment were ₹ 7.21 lakh thereby leaving balance of ₹ 9,800 available for household expenses. The Assessing Officer required the assessee to justify such a paltry sum towards household expenses. It was also observed that the family of assessee consisted of self, his wife, his son, his daughter- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer was quite reasonable in making addition of ₹ 2 lakh towards insufficient household withdrawals, which has been rightly sustained in the first appeal. This ground is not allowed. 6. Ground no.3 is against the confirmation of addition of ₹ 5,00,000. The facts of this ground are that the assessee deposited a sum of ₹ 5 lakh in his bank account by cash on 27.06.1996. On being called upon to furnish the source of this amount, the assessee stated that a sum of ₹ 5 lakh was taken as loan from bank which was shown as withdrawn on 02.03.1996 and the same amount was deposited on 27.06.1996. The Assessing Officer doubted the assessee s contention by mentioning that : it needs verification with referen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his contention by showing the utilization of the amount so withdrawn elsewhere. If the utilization of the amount is not proved then the contention of the assessee cannot be rejected. In the present case the assessee s contention about the redeposit of sum of ₹ 5 lakh at a gap of around three months has remained uncontroverted by the Assessing Officer. In our considered opinion, there is no basis whatsoever to make or sustain any addition in this regard. We, therefore, allow this ground. 8. Ground no.4 is against the confirmation of addition of ₹ 56,606. The facts apropos this ground are that the assessee paid bank interest of ₹ 56,606. The A.O. observed that this amount remained unaccounted for. Further since such loan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
