Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 1455 - ITAT MUMBAIAddition u/s 68 - Held that:- We do find merit in the submissions made by the assessee with regard to ₹ 7,30,000/- that it was an opening balance. The reason that the assessee cannot hold this much amount in hand for such a long period of time, is, basically a bald observation made by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has seen from the facts that the amount was actually pertaining to preceding year is not controverted even by the DR. In such a case, we cannot sustain the addition of ₹ 7,30,000/-. Coming to the smaller additions of ₹ 40,500/- and ₹ 40,250/- wherein the assessee sold his old items of furniture - The CIT(A) went through the evidence as filed by the assessee - Held that:- The fact that the assessee sold certain old furniture items is mentioned in the impugned order. The main reason for rejecting the assessee claim is an apprehension that the furniture items may be capital asset. At the outset, we find this argument of the CIT(A) to be incomprehensible as to how an item of furniture could become capital asset. We, therefore are inclined to accept the argument of the AR and reverse the findings of the CIT(A). Coming to addition of ₹ 41,250/- received gifts at house warming ceremony - assessee has submitted the card before the CIT(A), who has rejected the explanation and evidence - - Held that:- On going though the order of the CIT(A), we feel that the CIT(A) has held the issue dispassionately, because during ceremonies like this, some kind of gift, which is either in cash or kind is received by the person, who is performing the ceremony. In such a case, we reverse the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. Coming to addition of ₹ 2,00,000/-, which is explained by the assessee/AR that it is actually withdrawal and not deposit - Held that:-This issue once again has been dealt with by the CIT(A), who has negated the explanation of the assessee, by simply saying that assessee’s explanation cannot be accepted.This issue, according to us, needs fresh adjudication at the level of the AO. Decided partly in favour of assessee in statistical purposes.
|