TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bijoy Kumar Panda, DR For the Respondent : Shri T. S. Shiva Shankar, CA ORDER Per George George K. J. M. This appeal preferred by the Department is directed against the CIT (A)-VI order dated 12.03.2012 in relation to the assessment year 2008-09. 2. The solitary issue that arise for our consideration is whether the CIT (A) is justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.10.00 lakhs under the head "miscellaneous receipts". 3. Briefly stated the facts are as follows. 3.1 The assessee is an individual. For the concerned assessment year the return of income was filed on 15.12.2009 declaring a total income of Rs.3,11,783. The assessment was taken up for scrutiny by issuance of notice u/s 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ous receipt and not the loans returned by his brother Shri P N Manjunath as stated by the assessee in his letter. In the circumstances, the amount of Rs.10,00,000 received by the assessee from Shri P N Manjuanth is nothing but miscellaneous receipt and not alleged repayment of loan received by him, and is brought to tax as miscellaneous income u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act". 4. Aggrieved by the assessment, the assessee filed an appeal before the first appellate authority. The CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under: "The assessee claims that this was the amount received from his elder brother Sri P N Manju8nath, as repayment of loan which he had taken from him. The assessee has filed copies of his bank accounts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of Rs.10,00,000 received from his brother Sri Manjunath was repayment of loan already advanced especially when the same was not supported by any new documentary evidence. 2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) was correct in holding that the amount of Rs.10,00,000 received from Sri Manjunath was already included in repayment of loan which was amounting to Rs.30,00,000. 3. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) was correct in holding that Rs.10,00,000 received was already included in repayment of loan which was amounting to Rs.30,00,000 when the total receipts of the assessee was Rs.40,00,000. 4. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
