Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1356 - AT - Income TaxAddition made on account of unaccounted jewellery - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- No infirmity in the above order of the CIT(A). He treated gold ornament as explained considering the CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11th May, 1994. He has also referred to various decisions of ITAT wherein a view has been taken that such circular is to be considered even during the assessment proceedings. We find that before the Assessing Officer also this circular was referred by the assessee’s counsel. However, Assessing Officer allowed credit only in respect of five married ladies that to 400 gms each as against 500 gms each as prescribed in the Board’s Circular. Assessing Officer has not allowed any credit in respect of unmarried daughters and male members of the family. The CIT(A) allowed the relief only as per the instruction of CBDT. In view of above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A). The same is sustained - Decided against revenue. Addition on account of unaccounted sarafi business - CIT(A) allowed part relief - Held that:- No infirmity in the order of CIT(A). He has recorded the finding that the assessee has made another disclosure of ₹ 5 lacs in respect of unaccounted payment to brokers. Those payments are also recorded in the same seized pages and were part of the total payments made by the assessee at ₹ 76,30,540/-. Therefore, he reduced the addition to the extent of ₹ 5 lacs. This factual finding recorded by CIT(A) has not been controverted before us. We, therefore, find no justification with the finding of the CIT(A) in this regard. - Decided against revenue. Addition made on account of unaccounted investment in commodity trading - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- No justification to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). He has recorded the finding that various papers were found and seized from the assessee’s premises in which details of payments made by the assessee were mentioned. In those details, the payment of only ₹ 5 lacs to the brokers was mentioned and not ₹ 7,50,000/-. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was only on the basis of statement of some brokers which was found to be contrary to the facts on record by the CIT(A). This finding of the CIT(A) has not been controverted at the time of hearing before us. We, therefore, uphold his order - Decided against revenue. Computation of interest u/s.234A, 234B & 234C - Held that:- As submitted by the learned counsel that assessee has already filed an application u/s. 154 before the Assessing Officer requesting him to first adjust the cash seized against the tax liability and thereafter, compute interest u/s. 234A, 234B & 234C. He, therefore, submitted that only request at this stage is to direct the Assessing Officer to dispose of assessee’s application u/s.154 expeditiously. The ld. DR has not objection to the above request of the assessee’s counsel and he stated that even without direction of the ITAT, the Assessing Officer is supposed to dispose of the application filed u/s. 154 by any assessee. In view of above, we direct the Assessing Officer to dispose of the assessee’s application, if any, filed u/s. 154 in accordance with law at an early date. - Decided in favour of assessee as directed
|