Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1469 - AT - Income TaxSpecial Audit u/s 142(2A) - transaction of shares as mentioned in the AIR information as available with the AO - HELD THAT:- Ethical managements may at times regard such enquiries as an unwarranted intrusion or a hounding approach. Section 142() does not permit fishing or roving inquiry approach or a witch hunt but is regulated provision which accepts the need and necessity of the Assessing Officer to take help of an expert accountant, i.e., a Chartered Accountant, a person who is academically qualified and has practical experience to understand accounts and unearth tax evasion or furnishing of inaccurate particulars etc., The provision balances the right of the Revenue with the inconvenience which the Assessee may face. Assessing Officers are not Chartered Accountantans and when required and permissible, they can take help and assistance from the qualified specialists to compled the assessment and determine the taxable income of the assessee. The purpose of investigation by the AO is search for truth and unearth tax evasion. We find that CIT(A) has rightly dismissed this ground by considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, in our view, no interference is required in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, taking into account the above judicial precedents, we dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee. Sale of shares - business income OR STCG - HELD THAT:- No dividend income was received on the said shares of M/s. Akruti City Ltd., The period holding was mostly within a week, which does not point to investment objective. Thus, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee had not done business in futures and options and earned profit of ₹ 1.07 crores (shown as business income) and speculation loss in shares of ₹ 37.43 crores (wrongly claimed as set-off against F & O). Thus, considering the entire facts, the ld. CIT(A) had rightly concluded that the intention of the assessee at the time of transaction was not to earn dividend income of capital appreciation, but to indulge in adventure in the nature of trade. Thus, he has rightly upheld the action of the AO in treating the Short term capital gain as business income. As no new facts have been brought on record, therefore, in our view, no interference is required in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, we dismiss this ground raised by the assessee. Interest income as income from other sources and disallowing various expenses - HELD THAT:- We have upheld the finding of CIT(A) by holding that assessee is not in the business of money lending so as to persuade the interest income, therefore, the interest income was rightly taxed in the hands of the assessee u/s.56 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) while deciding this ground. As no new facts are required to be brought on record, therefore, in our view, no interference is required in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, we dismiss this ground raised by the assessee. Additions on account of alleged low withdrawals - HELD THAT:- According to the assessee the total withdrawals of ₹ 4,12,444/- during the FY 2007-08 i.e., before six years and the withdrawals were sufficient to satisfy his family of four members. On perusal of the facts of the case, it was noticed that the balance sheet of the assessee reveals that his capital has increased substantially from ₹ 1.45 Crores to 3.71 Crores during the year i.e., net increase of 2.26 Crores in the year. The total withdrawal of assessee is ₹ 4,12,444/- which is approximately ₹ 35,000/- per month and assessee was living in a posh locality at Malabar Hill at Mumbai and that he has good financial resources and profitability during the year had been justified and therefore, in these circumstances, the estimation of expenses made by the AO of ₹ 60,000/- per month were reasonable in the present case. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere in the order passed by the CIT(A). Thus, we dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee.
|