9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Further there do not exist any employee employer relationship between assessee and the person for any other provisions to be applicable. We direct Ld.AO to delete the addition made u/s.40 a (ia) - ground raised by assessee stands allowed Addition of HUF income - AO alleged that there is no separate existence of HUF and clubbed the income - HELD THAT:- For clubbing, there has to be common management, interglacing or interlocking of funds. Ld.AO has not given proper finding in respect of these, before clubbing the income of HUF in the hands of assessee. We therefore set aside the issue to Ld.AO for verifying the same. Assessee should file all relevant details to prove contrary. In the event there are sufficient materials to establish that bot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. 2.2 The learned AO and the CIT(A) have erred in not appreciating that the impugned payment was made to a part time employee and hence not liable for TDS. 2.3 Even otherwise, the payments were not liable for TDS under section 194J. 2.4 On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, impugned disallowance of ₹ 48,000 should be deleted in entirety. 2.5Without prejudice, the disallowance, if any, should be restricted to 30% of the impugned payment. 3.Addition of HUF income:- The learned assessing officer has erred in making an addition of ₹ 5,68,846 which was the total income of the K S Kothari HUF for the AY 2011-12 and the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n view of the above and other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the order passed by the CIT(A) to the extent prejudicial to the appellant be quashed OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE (I) (a)Disallowance of accounts writing charges amounting to ₹ 48,000 be deleted In the alternative and without prejudice (b) Impugned disallowance be restricted to ₹ 14,400 being 30% of ₹ 48,000 only (II) Addition of HUF income of ₹ 5,68,846 be deleted; (III) Disallowance of rent paid and depreciation claimed in respect of flat at Mumbai amounting to ₹ 96,000 and ₹ 49,208 be deleted. (IV) Interest levied under section 234A be deleted; (V) Interest levied under section 234B be delete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as made was part-time employee and there was no liability to deduct any TDS. It was submitted that assessee gave details of accounts to the person who then feeds them into computer. Ld.CIT (A) rejected assessee submissions, as the same was not substantiated with any evidences. At the time of hearing before us, Ld.AR submitted ledger accounts which were not produced before Ld.AO. Accordingly, it has been submitted that it may be remitted back to Ld.AO for verification of details. Even Ld. CIT (A) confirmed addition made by Ld.AO in the absence of details. 4.4. Ld.DR placed reliance upon view taken by Ld.CIT (A) in confirming addition. 4.5. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. It has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on that HUF is carrying out its activities from Mumbai. He placed reliance upon observation by Ld.AO in respect of total debt balance appearing in HUF account as well as the proprietary concern managed by assessee being the same. He submitted that Ld.AO therefore rightly held it to be same business carried out by assessee. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in the light of the records placed before us. 5.3. Revenue alleges that assessee has created HUF concern to reduce tax liability in the hands of assessee. There is nothing on record to establish that what is the separate business carried out by assessee in the name of HUF though may be having common address. Assessee somehow misrepresented it by saying that the HUF conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is observed by Ld.AO that flat is jointly owned by assessee and the sun. Ld.AO categorically recorded that same flat has been partly so shown as business asset and partly shown as income from house property fetching rent by assessee and his son respectively. Ld.AO also categorically observed that assessee is found to be occupying more than one property and therefore annual value of the properties to be treated as deemed let out as per section 23 (4) (b) of the Act, which has been rightly tax in the hands of assessee. We do not find any infirmity in the view adopted by authorities below and the same is upheld. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands dismissed. 7. Ground No. 5 is in respect of levy of interest which is consequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
