Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 771 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of alleged payment of insurance premium - Held that:- It is the assertion of the assessee that the concerned truck No. UP 78 B 1033 belonged to Shri Rakesh Kumar Chopra, nephew of the assessee and it is also asserted by the assessee before learned CIT(A) that such a fact had been got clarified by the A.O. through enquiries made from the office of R.T.O. This assertion of the assessee could not be controverted by any of the authorities below or by Learned D.R. of the Revenue. In our considered opinion, when the concerned vehicle is belonging to Shri Rakesh Kumar Chopra, this should be accepted that the payment was made by him only and since Shri Rakesh Kumar Chopra is nephew of the assessee, it is not very unusual to find a receipt of the nephew of the assessee at the place of the assessee and under these facts, we feel that the addition is not justified and the same is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition made on account of interest on deposit with M/s Sanjay Textiles, Kanpur - Held that:- It is undisputed fact that the amount is standing in the name of Suman Bala Chopra, wife of the assessee, in the books of M/s Sanjay Textiles, Kanpur. The basis of making addition by the Assessing Officer is that Suman Bala Chopra, wife of the assessee, is not assessed to tax and the Assessing Officer has straight away invoked the provisions of section 64 of the Act for making this addition without pin pointing as to which clause of sub section (1) of section 64 is applicable in the present case. As per the copy of ledger account of Suman Bala Chopra with M/s Sanjay Textiles, Kanpur, appearing on page No. 21 of the paper book for the financial year 1996-97, it is seen that the opening balance shown is ₹ 58,764/- and this is admitted by the Assessing Officer in Para 11 that the assessee’s wife had made investment of ₹ 58,764/- prior to block period. Once it is accepted by the Assessing Officer that the investment with M/s Sanjay Textiles, Kanpur was made by the assessee’s wife in the pre block period then income accruing out of such investment cannot be added in the hands of the present assessee. This is also noted by the Assessing Officer in the same Para of the assessment order that no fresh deposit was made by Suman Bala Chopra during block period. As per the ledger account copy available on pages 21 to 27 also, during this period, the addition is only on account of interest for each year and there is no fresh investment by the wife of the assessee. Considering all these facts, in our considered opinion, the addition is not justified and section 64 is not applicable. Hence, this addition is deleted. - Decided against revenue. Addition for deposit in 2 bank accounts - Held that:- We are of the considered opinion that on the basis of suspicion, the addition is not justified. If the assessee was having more trucks and for that reason, the assessee is not covered u/s 44AE of the Act then some evidence should have been brought on record by the Assessing Officer to show that the assessee was having more trucks and therefore, the assessee cannot get the benefit of section 44AE. Even if that is fact that the assessee is not covered u/s 44AE then also it is admitted position that the deposit in the bank accounts is relatable to freight charges and therefore, the total amount cannot be added as income of the assessee because for earning freight charges, expenses are to be incurred and to be allowed and when the assessee itself has shown income in each year on account of operating trucks, which is substantial when compared with these accounts, no further addition is justified because against total deposit of ₹ 3,75,653/- in these bank accounts during financial year 1996-97 to 2002-03, the assessee has shown income from truck plying of ₹ 24,000/- in assessment year 1997-98, ₹ 36,000/- in assessment year 1998-99, ₹ 48,000/- in assessment year 1999-2000, ₹ 48,000/- in assessment year 2000-2001 and ₹ 90,000/- in assessment year 2001-02 totaling to ₹ 2.46 lac in assessment year 1997-98 to assessment year 2001-02. It is also seen that as per the details of deposit in bank account also, as appearing in Para 26 of the assessment order, there was no deposit in bank account after financial year 2000-2001. Hence, in the facts of the present case, the addition is not justified. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|