9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee has not given any details relating to the amount - AR submitted that the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction with regard to the amounts credited as loan from assessee s daughter have been proved as Ms. Asima Gupta has disclosed the particulars regarding long term capital gain earned by her - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has observed that the Assessing Officer has mislead the facts as only an amount of ₹ 61,36,000/- had been received as loan during the year under consideration from Ms. Asima Gupta. The evidences shown before the Assessing Officer has established the genuineness of the transaction and details related to the origin of the sales of the shares were also before the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) has given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid shares were through recognized stock exchange and is supported by the broker note and the details thereof. Thus, the transactions were genuine and the CIT(A) rightly deleted this addition. Unexplained credits u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- All the records were before the Assessing Officer and there is a single sentence in the assessment order stating that the assessee has not given any evidence. But, the assessee s reply along with Annexure-13 dated 27/2/2015 was before the Assessing Officer which has explained the nature of the transaction and the advance given by Nina Bhartia. Hence, the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness was established by the assessee. The CIT(A) has rightly given finding that the transaction was genuine and dele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n allowing the appeal of the assessee without independently verifying the facts of the case, being a fact finding authority as mendated by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Jansampark advertising rather than giving observation as to that the A.O. has failed to conduct requisite enquiries. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in admitting fresh and additional evidences in the course of appeal without allowing any opportunity to the AO. (a) The order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. 3. The assessee filed e-return of income at loss of ₹ 3,79,885/- on 29/9/2012. The assessee derived income from house property, income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt to note that the Assessing Officer without any basis, estimated the annual letting value of the said properties. The said properties were not let out during the present Assessment Year. As those properties were not in habitable conditions and no tenant was found in respect of those properties. Therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition. There is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Hence, Ground No. 1 of the Revenue s appeal is dismissed. 8. As regards Ground No. 2 relating to addition of ₹ 1,77,020/-on account of unexplained credits, the Ld. DR submitted that the loan was taken from the daughter of the assessee and the assessee has not given any details relating to the amount of ₹ 61,00,000/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of ₹ 1,23,600/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of interest, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has given loan of ₹ 10,30,000/- without any interest to her spouse. The Assessing Officer has rightly charged the interest on the said additions at the rate of 12%. 12. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has not received any interest on the said advance/loan to her husband and the Assessing Officer has presumed the notional interest which was rightly deleted by the CIT(A). 13. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Assessing Officer has presumed the notional interest at the rate of 12% without any basis. The Assessing Officer merely on surmises and co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Revenue s appeal is dismissed. 17. As regards Ground No. 5 relating to addition of ₹ 50,00,000/- on account of unexplained credits u/s 68. The Ld. DR submitted that the funds have been transferred in Karnataka Bank from Nina Bhartia of ₹ 50,00,000/-, for which the assessee has not submitted any evidence. The Ld. DR further submitted that the CIT(A) has not taken cognizance that no evidence was filed before the Assessing Officer . 18. The Ld. AR relied upon the order the CIT(A) and further submitted that all the confirmations in respect of advance given and received back from Smt. Nina Bhartia was before the Assessing Officer along with her address and Permanent Account Number (PAN) as well as other details. Thus, the onu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
