Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 1012 - AT - Income TaxUndisclosed investment in FD - CIT-A deleted addition accepting the revised Balance Sheet which according to revenue, was an additional evidence thus violation of Rule 46A - Held that:- As brought to our notice that interest accrued on the existing FD savings bank was transferred to the FD as investment, thus increasing the value of investment in FD by an amount of ₹ 3,76,65,625.26/- as evident from perusal of page 10 of the paper book. Thus, we note that the Ld. CIT (A) has rightly noted that the increase of her investment in FD with Bank of India was not her undisclosed income as alleged by the AO and we do not find any infirmity in this finding of Ld. CIT(A) and we concur with the same. Coming to the ground raised by the revenue in respect of violation of Rule 46A, we note from the impugned order of the Ld. CIT (A) that the Ld. CIT (A) has called for a remand report from the AO. Our attention was drawn to page nos. 22 and 23 of the paper book which is the remand report forwarded by the AO dated 02.12.2015 wherein the AO has given his remand report, therefore, there is no violation of Rule 46A of the Rules. Thus, this ground of appeal of revenue is dismissed. Claim of exemption regarding principal sum of investment in mutual fund - assessee had voluntarily offered the said sum in her return of income - CIT-A allowed the claim - Held that:- CIT(A) has decided the issue raised by the assessee and has directed the AO to go through the details of the mutual fund investment and tax only the amount which is taxable after excluding the principal sum of investment which was mistakenly shown as income in the facts as narrated above is fair and reasonable order. Taking into consideration the facts discussed above, we note that the legal issue that has been raised by the assessee that only the right income has to be taxed has been rightly decided by the Ld. CIT(A) which does not call for any interference. Coming to the question as to whether the assessment can be completed below the returned income CIT(A)’s direction even if it results in an assessment below the returned income and consequently refund arises, it is valid as per law. Moreover we note that the relief sought cannot be refused merely because the assessee has omitted to claim the relief as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anchor Pressings P. ltd. Vs. CIT [1986 (7) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court]. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons given above, the revenue’s ground of appeal is dismissed.
|