TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 702X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08 - there was additional evidence filed by the assessee which has been considered by the CIT (A) for granting the relief to the assessee - the CIT (A) has violated the Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 – thus, the matter is remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication – Decided in favour of Revenue. Deletion of unexplained bank deposits – Held that:- The amount is not a cash deposit in the bank account of assessee - The narration in the bank statement itself shows that it was an amount credited in the bank account of the assessee by clearing - CIT (A) was justified in deleting this addition - the amount in the bank account of the assessee in the name of Manoj Joshi - credit entries in the bank account of the assessee were exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is in appeal before us by taking the following grounds of appeal :- 1. The Order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) is not correct in law and facts. 2. Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.18,120/- towards interest on KVP / NSC while holding investment of Rs.5,65,000/- by assessee without any material in support of the claim and without affording opportunity to Assessing officer whereas during search and during the course of assessment proceedings, assessee was found to have made investment of Rs.8,40,000/- in KVP/NSC. In doing so, Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has admitted additional evidence in violation of Rule-46A of Income Tax Rules 1962. 3. Learned Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any /all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal. 3. Ground Nos.1 6 are general in nature and does not require any adjudication, hence dismissed. 4. In the ground no.2, the issue involved is against deleting the addition of Rs.18,120/- out of the total addition of interest earned on KVP / NSC of Rs.63,320/-. The CIT (A) has found that total investment in assessee s name in KVP/NSC was of Rs.5,65,000/- and the interest accrued on this amount comes to Rs.45,200/- @ 8% and he granted part relief to the assessee. 5. We have heard both the sides on this issue. The total investment in KVP / NSC was of Rs.5,65,000/- which has not been disputed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee on the admissibility as well as on the merits of the evidence. The issue is restored to the file of CIT (A). 8. In the ground no.4, the issue involved is against deleting the addition of Rs.5,35,967/- on account of unexplained bank deposits 9. We have heard both the sides. The revenue has also raised the issue of additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. After hearing both the sides, we find that bank statement, which is placed at pages 13 to 17 of the paper book, was filed before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT (A). This addition is consisted the following amounts, which are narrated in paragraph 6 of the Assessing Officer s order, and the details are given as under :- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, CIT (A) was justified in deleting this addition. Similarly, the amount of Rs.3,84,000/- credited in the bank account of the assessee in the name of Manoj Joshi. We find that there is a debit of Rs.3,84,000/- on 07.01.2008 and again there is a credit of Rs.3,84,000/- on 08.01.2008. Thus, this entry itself was explained by the bank statement itself. Further, the receipt of Rs.1 lac in the name of Sandhya Rani is also explained by the entry dated 17.01.2008 where the amount of Rs.1 lac has been debited in the bank account of assessee in the name of Sandhya Rani and the credit has come back on 09.02.2008 in the same account. All these facts show that credit entries in the bank account of the assessee were explained by the bank account i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttal has owned up jewellery weighing about 800 Gms. and has claimed that the same was kept by her with her brother Shri Sanjiv Kumar for change of design and repairs. The cost of this jewellery has been covered by her in her additional surrender of Rs.24.00 lacs. The copy of assessment order in the case of Smt. Anshu Mittal for A.Y. 2007-08 has also been perused and it is seen that the surrender of Rs.2.54 crores stands accepted in her case and this jewellery is covered in the additional surrender of Rs.24.00 lacs. It is therefore held that excess jewellery of 748 Gms. found in the case of the assessee is actually owned by Smt. Anshu Mittal who has owned up the same and has also paid tax in respect of the same and therefore cannot be taxed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
