Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 309 - ITAT MUMBAIAddition u/s 69 on account of unexplained investment - purchase of tenancy right - Contention of the assessee that he did not purchase the property however, he took Room along with two other on monthly rent - Held that:- The assessee did not disclose the said transaction in his return income. It is also in dispute that an amount of ₹ 41,13,000/- was paid to acquire the tenancy right in the property mentioned above. The said agreement speaks about the fact that the assessee along with Kirtilal, M. Shah and Amarchand P Shah purchased the said property to the extent of 1/3 share each. The assessee failed to explain the source of the payment to the tune of ₹ 41,13,000/-.The full addition to the amount of ₹ 41,13,000/- u/s 69 doesn’t seems justifiable because the assessee was having only 1/3 share therefore, the addition to the extent of 1/3 share of ₹ 41,13,000/- is hereby ordered to be confirmed - Decided partly in favor of assessee. Disallowance of interest - Held that:- The figure of deposit and interest paid has duly discussed by CIT(A) in his order. Nothing distinguishable facts has been placed on record. Even, at the time of argument nothing was argued that which figure has wrongly being taken into consideration while declined the claim of the assessee regarding interest to the tune of ₹ 3,34,000/-. In view of the said circumstances we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the said addition hence, the order of the CIT(A) in this regard is not liable interfere with at this appellate stage. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the assessee. Addition of personal expenses - AO has made the addition to the extent of 5,00,000/- on account of low withdrawal which was restricted by the CIT(A) to the extent of 2,00,000/- - Held that:- Since, it was incumbent upon the assessee to explain the expenditure which has not been explained. Moreover, nothing distinguishable material has been produced before us to justify the claim raised by the assessee therefore in the said circumstances we confirmed the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue.
|