9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he six years for Assessment Year 2002-03 to Assessment Year 2007-08 and another notice u/s 153A read with section 147 was issued on 24.12.2009 raising about 10-12 queries for all the said years. For the Assessment Year 2003-04 the assessee had filed income tax return showing an income of Rs. 4,56,793/- whereas, the assessment has been made on an income of Rs. 10,34,790/- resulting in an addition of Rs. 6,84,000/-. Similarly for the Assessment Year 2004-05, the assessee had filed her return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 3,98,334/- , whereas the assessment has been made on an income of Rs. 6,98,334/- resulting in an addition of income of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Similarly for Assessment Year 2005-06, the assessee had filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 23,86,590/-, whereas, the assessment has been made on an income of Rs. 26,71,594/- resulting in an addition of Rs. 2,85,000/- and the entire addition for all these years were completed within 13 days after issue of statutory notices. 3. Being aggrieved by the said additions, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld CIT(A) who was pleased to grant partial relief, however the claim of the assessee that the incr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4, the assessee had filed income tax return showing an income of Rs. 4,56,793/- whereas, the assessment has been made u/s 153A read with section 147 on an income of Rs. 10,34,790/- resulting into an addition of Rs. 6,84,000/-. 7. Aggrieved by the said addition made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld CIT(A) who has given partial relief to the assessee, wherein, in respect of addition of Rs. 6,84,000/-, the ld CIT(A) has made a finding that an amount of Rs. 3,92,000/- added by the Assessing Officer in the hands of the assessee is not correct, since the very same amount was added and assessed in the hands of the husband of the assessee, therefore it would not be appropriate to again add it in the hands of the assessee. And therefore the addition of Rs. 3,43,000/- was therefore deleted. However, the assessee's claim that an amount of Rs. 3,60,000/- which was shown as income from tuitions was not allowed by the ld CIT(A) and that order of the Assessing Officer was upheld and confirmed by the ld CIT(A). Aggrieved by this order of the ld CIT(A) the assessee is before us. 8. The ld AR submitted that the assessee is a school teacher in Sanskriti Schoo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 4,50,790/- which included Rs. 3,60,000/- as tuition income also. Yet according the ld AR the Assessing Officer erroneously added Rs. 3,41,000/- over and above Rs. 3,60,000/- without giving any credit for Rs. 3,60,000/- which was already taxed in her hands in the relevant assessment year itself. The ld AR pointed out that after the search at her premises on 15.02.2008, the first notice was issued only on 17.12.2009 and the assessment was completed for all the assessment years from Assessment Year 2003-04 to 2007-08 within a short span of 13 days, which according to the ld AR was too short a period of time, to assess the assessee for all the six assessment years; and the Assessing Officer was in a hurry to somehow make some addition and have hastily completed the assessment proceeding. According to the ld AR, It will be evident from a perusal of the assessment order itself, wherein, the already taxed income has been taxed again in the hands of the assessee as undisclosed income, whereas, the income under question was duly reflected in the regular return filed by the assessee and subjected to tax during the relevant financial year as tuition income; and the said tuition fee in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee has been filing returns and has been consistently claiming in the said return certain income as her tuition fee income for the assessment years under adjudication. The amount which has been reflected as tuition fee income has been shown in the regular return filed u/s 139(1) and the same was accepted by the revenue authorities. The issue of reopening of all the assessment years was due to the fact that search was conducted in the premises of M/s. ATS Group; and search was also conducted in the premises of the husband of the assessee, Shri Ashwani Talwar and the assessee, Smt. Afsha Talwar situated at F-2, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi and W-102/5, Anupam Garden, Lane No. 6, Saket, New Delhi. Thereafter, we find that the assessment u/s 153A of her husband Shri Ashwani Talwar was carried out by the ACIT, Central Circle, Meerut; whereas the case of the assessee was completed by the Assessing Officer, ACIT, Central Circle, 23(1), New Delhi. We also find that the first notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 17.12.2009 along with questionnaire and the entire assessment for the period was completed on 30.12.2009. There is no dispute about the fact that the returns were filed by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Officer and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) in respect to the claim of the assessee in respect to tuition fee income for all the Assessment Year under consideration from Assessment Year 2003-04 to Assessment Year 2007-08. 11. In the result the appeal preferred by the assessee on this ground succeeds and we allow the same. 12. In respect of assessment 2006-07 the ground of appeal are as follows:- "1. Because on facts and in law and on grounds taken and basis adopted, confirming the addition of Rs. 3,90,000/- made u/s 69B of the Act is totally wrong, unjustified and illegal. 2. Because the ld CIT(A) did not take into consideration the payment of Rs. 3,90,000/- made by the assessee to M/s Shah Construction out of her savings bank account with HDFC bank. The CIT(A) also ignored the confirmation certificate from M/s Shah Construction filed. 3. Because facts and in law addition of Rs. 31,989/- made under section 69C of the Act is totally wrong, unjustified and illegal. 4. Because the ld CIT(A) wrongly held that after investing in house construction, the cash balance would not be sufficient to make the expenditure of Rs. 31,898. The construction expenditure were incurred by cheque out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investment was Rs. 1,18,351/-. The balance of Rs. 7,60,000/-Rs. 1,18,351/- i.e. Rs. 6,41,649/- was considered as unexplained investment. 15. Aggrieved by the said order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld CIT(A) who was pleased to grant partial relief to the assessee, by accepting the value of the construction worked out by the registered valuer and which was claimed by the assessee at Rs. 3,90,000/-. However, he held that that the said amount spent on construction to be unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act. Being aggrieved by the said order of the ld CIT(A), the assessee is before us. 16. The ld AR submitted that the appellant duly explained the source of investment of Rs. 3,90,000/- being payment made to M/s Shah Construction, a proprietary concern of Mr. A. K. Shah who was the co-director with the husband of the appellant. According to the ld AR, the bank statement of the assessee's bank account clearly shows that the cheque of Rs. 3,90,000 has been issued to M/s Shah Construction on 21.12.2009 and took our attention to the copy of bank account and confirmation certificate by M/s Shah Construction. According to the ld AR, the AO had no re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e this ground of the appeal is allowed. 18. Apropos addition of Rs. 31,989/- u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 19. Brief Facts: That during the course of search u/s 132 certain documents/ receipts of cash were found from the residential premises of the appellant and the same are the following (a) Receipt No. 5563. Dated 05.08.2005 issued by Noida Authority in respect of payment of Rs. 344/- on account of water charges. (b) Receipt No.43843 dated 31.07.2005 issued by Noida Authority in respect of payment of Rs. 15,800/- on account of water charges deposited on 12.07.2005 in original bank of commerce. (c) Copy of challan No. 7023 whereby a sum of Rs. 1,400/- has been deposited in cash on 23.11.2005 in Canara Bank, Sector-5, Noida. (d) Photocopy of receipt dated 29.03.2006 for deposit of Rs. 2,969/- in original Bank of Commerce on 17.03.2006. (e) Receipt No. 801813 dated 28.12.2005 whereby the amount of Rs. 4,867/- in respect of electricity charges has been paid to Paschimanchal vidyut Vitran Ltd. Noida. (f) Receipt No. 45 according to which an amount of Rs. 6,609/- has been paid to Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Ltd. Noida on 11.07.2005. 20. A questionnaire was issued to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. D-310, Sector-47, Noida is sufficient to meet out the above expenditure in cash. I therefore reject the claim of the assessee." and therefore has erred in working out cash in hand/ withdrawal for house construction/ withdrawal in complete disregard of the facts and is based on conjectures and surmises. The ld AR took our attention to page 55 of the PB, where cash flow statement prepared by the appellant for the Financial Year 2005-06 is filed and we were shown that the cash withdrawal for various payment connected with Plot No. D-310, Noida was Rs. 54,495/-. We find that the AO has erroneously stated that Rs. 3,90,000/- was invested in the construction of house at Noida from cash in hand, whereas the assessee has made the said transaction through cheque bearing no. 400185 dated 21st December 2005 (P.B. 23). Accordingly, the AO erred in working out the cash position of the assessee and made an erroneous addition u/s 69B of the Act and ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same, therefore we need to be set aside the same and we order the impugned addition to be deleted. 24. Apropos addition of Rs. 11,012/- as interest income. 25. Brief Facts of the case is as follows:- The appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest income shown by assessee is Rs. 66,912.43 (Rs. 39,221.83 + Rs. 27,690.60). All these amounts of interest are credited in the bank account of assessee. Perusal of copies of bank statement and also the details of debit and credit given by assessee reveals credit of following interest in her bank account. S. No. Name of Bank Date of Credit Particular Amount of interest 1. Bank of Baroda 09.07.2005 Interest 4.457.00 2 Bank of Baroda 09.01.2006 Interest 6.358.00 3. HDFC Bank Ltd. 01.07.2005 Interest 18.222.88 4. HDFC Bank Ltd. 30.09.2005 Interest 7.587.97 5. HDFC Bank Ltd. 01.01.2006 Interest 1.694.26 6 HDFC Bank Ltd. 03.01.2006 Interest 39.221.83 7 HDFC Bank Ltd. 31.03.2006 Interest 185.49 8 Dena Bank 09.09.2005 Interest 95.00 9 Dena Bank 08.03.2006 Interest 99.00 Total 77,924.43 32. That the total interest income as per the computation and also as per the capital account of the appellant is shown at Rs. 77,112.53/-. However, the ld Assessing Officer has worked out the interest income at Rs. 77,924/- as such there is a difference of Rs. 812/-. Therefore we direct the deletion of addition of Rs. 10,200/- and add only Rs. 812/- to the income of the assessee. 33. In respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
