9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urchased by the assessee in earlier years have not been considered by the CIT(A), which is not justified because the assessee has explained the nature of credit entries. Direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition on account of cash credits in bank account. Ground no.1 raised by the assessee is allowed. Addition on account of interest on FDR - HELD THAT:- AO himself noted in the assessment order that FDRs relate to earlier years, therefore, find force in the contention of the assessee that the major part of interest earned on maturity value of FDRs pertains to previous years, which should not be added in the present year. Direct the AO to delete the addition in respect of interest earned on previous years and restrict the addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. - ITA No. 82/Ind/2018 (A.Y. 2005-06) - - - Dated:- 14-1-2020 - SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by: Shri S.S. Deshpande, CA Respondent by: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-Ujjain dated 01.11.2017. 2. Facts giving rise to the grounds of appeal are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from service and share trading. The return of income declaring total income of ₹ 2,81,610/- was filed on 28.7.2005. The revised return of income was filed on 08.8.2005 declaring further income of ₹ 4,826/-. The Assessing Officer framed assessment and made additions and the ld. CIT(A) also partly confirmed the additions, against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Sr. DR relied on the orders of the Revenue Authorities but could not controvert the submission of the assessee by bringing any contrary material on record. 5. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and gone through the material available on the file. On consideration of above facts, I find that ld. CIT(A) considered the past savings but did not appreciate the explanation of the assessee that he was working in the Government Health Department since 02.9.1997 as an Assistant Surgeon and the credits are from the rotational fund. Further, credit entries regarding the cancellation of DD purchased for share trading, clearing of cheque no.143176 and IDBI Infrastructure Bonds purchased by the assessee in earlier years hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ooking to these facts, I direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition in respect of interest earned on previous years and restrict the addition to the year under consideration if the same is not part of return of income for the present year. Accordingly, ground no.2 raised by the assessee is partly allowed. 9. Through the ground no.3, the assessee has challenged the confirmation of addition of ₹ 50,000/- on account of private practice. The Assessing Officer made addition noting that the assessee could not prove the credit entry of ₹ 50,000/- made in the bank account. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same on the ground that the assessee is a Surgeon and receiving fees from private practice. 10. Learned counsel for the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e establishing the genuineness of transaction. 13. Before me, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the amount was shown in the return of income of the wife of the assessee and as such the addition in the hands of the assessee is unjustified. Therefore, it is sufficient proof of discharging the initial burden of explaining the addition. But, the Assessing Officer did not consider the same and ld. CIT(A) however deleted the addition of ₹ 1,37,528/- on account of profit on share trading holding that the same pertains to wife of the assessee but investment of ₹ 7,68,844/- was not deleted on the ground that the initial burden was not discharged by the assessee establishing the genuineness of transaction, which is not ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
