9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowance to the extent of dividend income of ₹ 4,206/- earned by the assessee. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Addition u/s. 69 - assessee has made investment in immovable property jointly - share of the assessee in the property was of 50% - CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee - HELD THAT:- We observe that assessee had tried to explain the part investment made out of ₹ 76 lacs in the earlier years which had already been deleted by the ld. CIT(A). However, in respect of payment made during the previous year relevant to the year under consideration, the assessee had only explained the source of payment of ₹ 10 lacs out of the total amount of payment of ₹ 32,82,528/-. - no error in the decision of ld. CIT(A) in restricting the addition to the extent of ₹ 22,85,528/- since the assessee had failed to substantiate the source of this investment during the year under consideration. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Addition u/s. 68 - Unsecured loan taken from various parties - CIT(A) has restricted the addition to the extent of loan amount of ₹ 2,55,500/- obtai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n shares and securities and claimed interest expenditure of ₹ 10,28,811/-. However, the assessee has not made any disallowance of expenditure incurred on earning exempt income u/s. 14A of the Act, therefore, the Assessing Officer has computed expenditure to the amount of ₹ 14,137/- attributable towards earning exempt income u/s. 14A as per rule 8D of I.T. Rule, 1962. 5. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee stating that Assessing Officer has correctly applied section 14A of the Act. 6. We have heard the rival contention and perused the material on record. It is noticed that Assessing Officer has incorrectly taken exempt income as ₹ 3,35,994/- while disallowing ₹ 14137/- u/s. 14A of the Act. However, the amount of ₹ 3,35,994/- was represented as investment made by the assessee as on 31-03-2010. We have gone through the paper book furnished by the assessee comprising annual account showing investment of ₹ 4,12,451/- and as on 31st March, 2009 and investment of ₹ 3,35,994/- as on 31st March, 2010. The total exempt income of dividend was shown at ₹ 4,206/- o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further submitted that in the present case not only the appellant has explained the sourced of investment but has also explained the investment made by him including source thereof which is also recorded in the book of accounts and therefore provisions of Section 69 have no application in the present case. The appellant has relied upon the following decisions :- Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) Natu Ram PremchandVs.CIT 49 ITR 561 (All) Kamdhenu Steel Alloys Ltd. 206 Taxman 254 (Delhi HC) Audobindo Sanitary Stores Vs. CIT 276 ITR 549 (Ori) The appellant has also contended that out of total investment of ₹ 1,08,85,528/-, an amount of ₹ 76 lakhs was made in earlier years and amount of ₹ 32,82,5287- was made during the year. Out of which ₹ 22,85,528/- were invested by Shri Rttshmikant C. Patel to whom appellant had advanced a sum of ₹ 24 lakhs in earlier years. 3.10.2. The facts of the case, submissions of the appellant and remand reports from the A.O. are considered. The appellant has mainly contended that source of the investment is explained and recorded in the books of accounts. It is also the contention of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt C. Patel who had made further payment to the land owner from his bank account. The assessee has also submitted that out of total investment of ₹ 1,08,85,528/- payment of ₹ 76 lacs was made in earlier years and the remaining amount of ₹ 32,82,528/- was only paid during the year under consideration. Therefore, it was contended that ₹ 76 lacs was opening investment made in the earlier years which cannot be added u/s.69 of the Act during the year under consideration. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, we observe that assessee had tried to explain the part investment made out of ₹ 76 lacs in the earlier years which had already been deleted by the ld. CIT(A). However, in respect of payment made during the previous year relevant to the year under consideration, the assessee had only explained the source of payment of ₹ 10 lacs out of the total amount of payment of ₹ 32,82,528/-. In view of the above facts, we consider no error in the decision of ld. CIT(A) in restricting the addition to the extent of ₹ 22,85,528/- since the assessee had failed to substantiate the source of this investment during the year under consideratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may charge to income-tax as income of the assessee of that previous year if- (i) The assessee offers no explanation about the nature of source of such sum, or (ii) The explanation offered by him is, in the opinion of the AO not satisfactory. Here in the instant case credits of ₹ 2,14,28,772/- were taken by the assessee in earlier years. In the relevant previous year the assessee has shown only opening balance of these credits. These credit entries did not relate to the year under consideration for being considered u/s.68 of the Act. The AO could have enquired the genuineness of the credits in the year the assessee took them and could have made addition u/s.68 of the Act in that year if not found genuine. Considering the provisions of the section and the decisions cited by the appellant, the addition of ₹ 2,14,28,772/- which represents opening balances is deleted. 3.11.3 With regard to addition of ₹ 9,34,570/ which represents interest credited on old loans during the year the contention of the appellant that a separate addition has been made for the interest credited during the year and this addition amounts to double taxation is acce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
