Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 671 - ITAT HYDERABADAssessment u/s 153A - addition in respect of the loan advanced to Smt. Naragoni Radha - HELD THAT:- AO has made the addition on the ground that pro-notes as well as receipts of the amount found in the premises of the assessee by rejecting the submission of the assessee that he has not advanced any amount to Smt. Naragoni Radha. As per section 292C of the IT Act, any document is found in the possession of the assessee, he has to explain that it is not belonging to him. In this case, the assessee denied that he has not advanced the amount, but the documentary evidence by way of promissory notes and receipts from the borrower shows that the assessee has advanced the amount. That part, nobody signs a promissory note without receiving the money. In view of these observations, we are of the opinion that assessee has failed to discharge burden cast upon him to establish that he has not advanced amount to Smt. Naragoni Radha. No infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the AO and accordingly, upholding the order of CIT(A), we dismiss the ground raised by the assessee on this issue. Unexplained investment - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee himself has admitted by filing an affidavit that he has advanced an amount of ₹ 5 lakhs to Shri K. Naganatham, but, we do not know what is the reason for denial of the same. Before the AO, CIT(A) and even before us, the assessee failed to explain the source for advancing the amount of ₹ 5 lakhs, hence, the assessee failed to discharge the burden cast upon him to prove that he has not advanced the amount. We find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the AO, therefore, upholding the order of CIT(A) we dismiss the ground raised by the assessee on this issue. Unexplained investment in jewellery - We are of the view that CIT(A) has reasonably held that 500 grams of gold by the wife of the assessee is reasonable and hence, we confirm the decision of the CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee on this issue. Unexplained investment in construction of house based on the valuation report of the DVO - AO to ascertain the investment in the house property, referred the case to the Valuation Cell and the Valuation cell had estimated the cost of construction at ₹ 75.53 lakhs which was contested by the assessee who worked out the estimated construction at ₹ 66.10 lakhs - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) directed the AO to verify the rate adopted by the Valuation Cell whether the same is based on CPWS rate and if so, the AO should give a deduction of 15% thereon to bring at par on the state PWD rate. Further, he directed that in terms of the judicial pronouncements as above including that of the jurisdiction Tribunal, a 10% should be allowed for self supervision charges to arrive at the cost of construction instead of 7.5% allowed by the Valuation Cell. In other words, the AO should work out the cost of construction afresh keeping in view the direction as above. We are of the view that the directions given by the CIT(A) to AO are proper and no interference is called for in the directions of the CIT(A) and accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.
|