Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 1091 - AT - Income TaxAddition made to the brokerage income - these assesses have received part of brokerage income in cash and did not disclose the same - Held that:- Additions confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A), on estimate basis and telescoping the same is not justified. Addition made on the basis of proforma invoice - Held that:- As already noticed that the Ld CIT(A) has confirmed this addition only on the reasoning that the assessees have suppressed receipts by receiving them by way of cash. In the earlier paragraphs, we have held that the addition made towards suppressed fee receipts are liable to be deleted, since the said view taken by the tax authorities are not supported by any credible material. Thus, the very reasoning on the basis of which this addition was sustained by Ld CIT(A) fails. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was not justified in confirming this addition in the hands of the three assessees mentioned above. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition made on this issue in the hands of the three assessees Addition in respect of estimated household expenses - Held that:- CIT(A) has accepted the fact that the amounts withdrawn by the assessee and his family members for personal purposes have been wrongly computed by the assessing officer and he has further held that there is no requirement to make any addition. However, he has taken altogether different stand and has expressed the view that the expenses booked as business expenses shall have personal element and accordingly disallowed a sum of ₹ 1.00 lakh on estimated basis. The Ld CIT(A) has not brought on record as to how much expenses was booked by the assessee as business expense, even though the assessing officer has accepted the entire amount of business expenses claimed by the assessee. However, there is some merit in the observations of the Ld CIT(A) that the personal element involved in respect of Vehicle and telephone expenses could not be ruled out. Accordingly, we modify the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and sustain the addition to the extent of ₹ 20,000/- and in our view the same would meet the ends of justice. We direct the AO to sustain the addition accordingly Investment in diamond and gold jewellery - Held that:- It is pertinent to note that the bills pertaining to the year 1978 were sought to be verified in the year 2008, i.e., after expiry of about 30 years. It would be difficult for anyone to establish the genuineness of the bill after the expiry of about 30 years. Further offering of jewellery at the time of marriage is an established custom in this country. Hence, there is no reason to suspect the said claim put forth by the assessee. With regard to the claim of the assessee that diamond jewelleries worth ₹ 5.00 lakhs were received on various occasions, we notice that the assessee has failed to furnish the details of functions, festivals, name of donors etc. However, one can note that receiving of gifts at the time of festivals and functions is quite common. Further, the assessees herein have also filed income tax returns over the years. Hence, on a conspectus of the matter, we are of the view that the addition on account of diamond jewellery may be restricted to ₹ 1.50 lakhs and we are of the view that the same would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we modify the order of Ld CIT(A) on both the issues referred above and direct the AO to sustain the addition relating to diamond jewellery to ₹ 1.50 lakhs and delete the addition relating to gold jewellery.
|