9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, once income is added on account of the deposit then the withdrawal cannot be ignored as both the deposit as well as withdrawal transactions are during this financial year. Therefore, even if taking pick credit the said amount of ₹ 1,50,000/- is required to be taken into consideration. Thus, the addition made by the AO to the extent of the said amount of ₹ 1,50,000/- is not sustainable. CIT(A) has accepted the fact that the assessee was running a beauty parlour and boutique for last about 17 years and accepted the saving of the assessee of the past years but only to the extent of ₹ 1,50,000/-. CIT(A) has estimated the saving without referring the basis therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case when the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.03.2019 of CIT(A), Alwar for the assessment year 2010-11. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal as under:- 1.0 That the ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case in making an addition of ₹ 451000.00 and the ld. CIT(A) Alwar has erred in sustaining a sum of ₹ 301000.00 out of the same. 2.0 That the ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case in making and addition of ₹ 82805.00 and the ld. CIT(A), Alwar has erred in sustaining the same. 3.0 That the assessee reserves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and boutique since the year 1992 and till August, 2008 for 17 years therefore, the claim of saving from beauty parlour activity of ₹ 3,00,000/- is reasonable against which the ld. CIT(A) has accepted only ₹ 1,50,000/-. The ld. AR has further contended that when a sum of ₹ 1,50,000/- was withdrawn by the assessee prior to the subsequent deposit of ₹ 3,00,000/- then only pick credit should have been considered for the purpose of addition. Thus, the ld. AR has submitted that the estimation made by the ld. CIT(A) is without any basis and the addition to the extent of ₹ 3,00,000/- may be deleted. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that the assessee has not declared any income from the be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bout 17 years and accepted the saving of the assessee of the past years but only to the extent of ₹ 1,50,000/-. The ld. CIT(A) has estimated the saving without referring the basis therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case when the assessee s activity of running of beauty parlour and boutique for so many years is not dispute then the saving of ₹ 3,00,000/- as claimed of the assessee is reasonable and proper. 5.2 Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above the addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is deleted. 5.3 Before parting with the issue it is to be noted that the decision in case of Bhawani Singh vs. ITO dated 13.09.2018 in ITA No. 407/JP/2017 as relie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verment were made in the sale deed revealing the fact of cost of improvement. Except the bill on plain paper the assessee has not produced any other documents in support of the claim. The AO has also not conducted any inquiry whether any work of improvement was carried out at the site prior to the sale of the plot of land on 20.08.2009. Therefore, in the fact and circumstances of the case when neither the assessee has produced the conclusive evidence for carrying out the improvement work nor the AO conducted a proper inquiry to rebut the claim of the assessee it is proper to allow the claim of the assessee on some estimate basis. Accordingly, a sum of ₹ 40,000/- is allowed on account of cost of improvement on estimate basis. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
