Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 18 - ITAT HYDERABADUnexplained cash deposits - Held that:- There is a case where husband and wife are having joint bank a/c, bank statement and accounts were produced before us and even the bank statement regarding the relevant transactions were also brought in before us which are already on record. The assessee’s husband has categorically stated through affidavit and confirmation letter filed before the CIT (A) that he is earning income from rice business and that he is having a joint a/c with his wife the assessee here in SBI A/c No.30588257363 with the SBI Kukatapally Temple Branch. We have noticed that the Bank a/c indicates that the deposits are by Sri K. Basavaiah also and payments are for Rice purchase. This indicates that the entire cash deposit of ₹ 48,07,730 relates to his rice business. The learned CIT (A) has correctly ordered the concerned AO within whose jurisdiction the husband of the assessee is assessed to verify the sanctity of the claim in the rice business. Having said so, just because the assessee is a joint holder of that account, any amount deposited by her husband which he would have earned from a separate business, it cannot be added to the hands of the assessee. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned CIT (A) on the relief granted to the assessee by the CIT (A). The grounds are rejected. Disallowance of HRA - Held that:- AO has noticed from the return of income of the assessee’s husband has claimed deduction u/s 80GG. However, during the course of the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that her husband filed his revised return of income withdrawing the claim u/s 80GG. A copy of the revised return was also filed before the first appellate authority. The learned CIT (A) ordered to verify the genuineness of the assessee’s claim and allow the claim of HRA after verifying the facts. With regard to this issue, our considered view is that whosoever paid the rent can claim the deduction and as directed by the first appellate authority, it is for the AO to verify the facts whether the assessee will get the claim or not. On this issue we do not see any reason to modify the direction of the CIT (A). The ground is accordingly rejected.
|