9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iven as loan to someone because there is neither name of the assessee nor the name of the loanee. The entire findings have been arrived at on the basis of presumptions and assumption that the amount of ₹ 12,00,000/- attracts the interest @ 18% because when we examine para 5.4, the AO has tabulated the presumptive figure of interest calculated @ 18% on the principal amount of ₹ 12,00,000/- but after 31.03.2007 till 31.10.2013 interest figures continued the same i.e. ₹ 5,31,217/-. The coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in AY 2008-09 [2018 (3) TMI 1406 - ITAT DELHI] has deleted the addition for AY 2008-09 made on the basis of same seized document A-1 on the ground that alleged interest income cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 3,09,876/- in AY 2014-15) on account of alleged interest income on the basis of a seized document which is dumb/bald. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred on facts as well as in law in confirming the addition by invoking section 292C in-spite of the fact that the document was not found either in the possession or control of the appellant. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred on facts as well as in law in holding that the appellant has not discharged the onus of offering suitable explanation. 3. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : During the search seizure operation conducted under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) on the Bindal Group of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest income of ₹ 3,09,876/- @ 18% on principal amount of ₹ 29,51,207/- in AY 2014-15. AO made addition of ₹ 84,000/- each in AYs 2012-13 2013-14 on account of notional rent of one property @ 10% per month which the assessee has not disclosed. 4. Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT (A) by way of appeals who has confirmed the additions in AYs 2010-11, 2011-12 2014-15 by dismissing the appeals. However, in AYs 2012-13 2013-14, ld. CIT (A) partly allowed the appeals by deleting the addition made by the AO on account of notional rent. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeals. 5. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the Revenue r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23,26,533 31.10.07 4,18,775 27,45,308 31.10.08 4,94,155 32,39,463 31.10.09 5,83,103 38,22,566 31.10.10 6,88,061 45,10,627 31.10.11 8,11,912 53,22,539 31.10.12 9,58,057 62,80,696 31.10.13 11,30,525 74,11,221 8. It is also not in dispute that AO has invoked th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the paper book. 10. To repel the arguments addressed by the ld. AR for the assessee, ld. DR for the Revenue contended by way of written submissions that the assessee was confronted during the assessment proceedings by the AO to explain the document in question and the case of the assessee falls within the deeming provisions of section 292C of the Act as the assessee has not denied the seizure of document from his residence and further contended that the AO/CIT (A) have rightly held that even this rate of interest of 18% is commensurate with the prevailing market rate and have relied upon the decision of Hon ble High Courts in Dayachand vs. CIT (2001) 117 taxmann 438 (Delhi), CIT vs. Nagesh Kumar Aggarwal - (2011) 9 taxmann.com 249 (D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of presumptions and assumption that the amount of ₹ 12,00,000/- attracts the interest @ 18% because when we examine para 5.4, the AO has tabulated the presumptive figure of interest calculated @ 18% on the principal amount of ₹ 12,00,000/- but after 31.03.2007 till 31.10.2013 interest figures continued the same i.e. ₹ 5,31,217/-. 14. The coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee s own case in AY 2008-09 (supra) has deleted the addition for AY 2008-09 made on the basis of same seized document A-1 on the ground that alleged interest income cannot be attributed to the assessee on the basis of dumb document. 15. In view of what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that addition made on the basi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
