9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of any cash/kind from the transaction recorded nd the gift which has been executed on 31st May, 2007, but, the assessee has recorded the figure before executing the gift deed, will not attract any cash/kind transactions, as the assessee only inflated the figures. The assessee has made a wrong entry in the books of account, which will not warrant any addition as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd[ 1971 (8) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] . No doubt the assessee has wrongly mentioned the amount and the gift has been materialized in the following Financial Year. In view of our above observations, we delete the addition made on this count. Accordingly, this ground is allowed. Non grant relief of LIC premium paid - HELD THAT:- Before us, assessee has produced LIC premium paid receipts, which are placed on record. We, therefore, direct the AO to allow the assessee s claim towards LIC premium paid, u/s 80C of the Act. Thus, this ground is allowed. - ITA No. 812/HYD/2016 - - - Dated:- 8-3-2022 - Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member And Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Tej Prakash Toshniwal For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Officer added ₹ 3,60,000/- towards the registered gift received from his real brothers towards gifting of their share in the house property along with whom he purchased the immovable property. The above said registered gift deed which was executed by his two brothers was a registered instrument and the said gift deed was executed by his real brothers. The petitioner have produced the Xerox copy of the registered gift instrument which the Income Tax Officer did not consider and added to the income of the assessee. The manner and method under which the addition have been made are quite arbitrary and illegal one. 6. The method and manner in which the assessment completed by the assessment order is vindictive in nature and made up his mind to add the above said sums as income without conducting any verification or enquiry is quite contrary to law. The Income Tax Officer ought to have verified true nature of the receipts before venturing to add the above said additions. Thus the order of the Income Tax Officer is quite arbitrary and illegal and liable to be set aside. 7. That the Income Tax Officer did not grant the relief of life insurance premium paid for ₹ 25, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... books of account and estimated the income u/s. 44AF of the I. T. Act, 1961. Observing that in the absence of the details of credits in Andhra Bank, Chandanagar Branch and in the absence of proper explanation as to the source of credits, the AO treated the entire amount of deposits of cash of ₹ 10,12,500/- as unexplained credits and added back to the total income. 6.1 The CIT(A), upheld the addition made by the AO by holding that even before the appellate proceedings, no bills etc. were filed to support the assessee s claim. 6.2 Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee disclosed income from retail readymade dresses business u/s 44AF @ 5% of turnover of ₹ 17,39,080/- i.e. ₹ 86,954/- and the rental income of ₹ 84,388/- and total income declared was ₹ 1,46,026/-. He, therefore, contended that the bank deposits cannot be added as income as the said deposits are from out of the retail sales, from past savings and realization from receviables and the opening capital cash balances brought forward from the earlier years. 6.3 The ld. DR, on the other hand, besides relying on the orders of revenue authorities, submitted that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the gift deed was executed on 31st May, 2007, whereas the amount recorded in the financial statement for the year ended 31st March, 2007. He, therefore, pointed out that how the assessee can make entry before executing the gift deed and submitted that the assessee was unable to explain the gift received properly before the lower authorities. He further submitted that the value of the property has been recorded more than the gifted amount. 7.4 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record as well as gone through the orders of revenue authorities. On perusal of the financial statements, we find that for the FY ended 31/03/2007, the assessee has credited gift amount in his capital account and correspondingly effect has been given on the assets side in the balance sheet as house at kakajiguda. Further, on observing the financial statement for the year ended 31/03/2006, there is a house at Kakajiguda valued at ₹ 1,50,000/- and the same was inflated as ₹ 3,60,000/- out of gift received. When the Bench asked a specific question to ld. AR regarding increase in the value of house at Kakajiguda, the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
