TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... beneficiary of the impugned amount i.e. ₹ 25 lakh, thus there is no question of making the addition u/s 56(2)(vi) of the Act. Even otherwise, the amount after liquidating the mutual fund was returned back (Rs.15,58,368/- on 19/10/210 and ₹ 10,37,263/- on 22/03/2011) meaning thereby, the amount was returned back along with profit, consequently, the provision of section 56(2)(vi) is not applicable. Decided in favour of assessee. Addition on estimated ALV of the vacant property - Held that:- As find that the assessee was having two properties one at Baroda and other at Pune in her name. The assessee claimed Baroda property as SOP and has shown the property situated at Pune at ₹ 8,45,226/- in her balance sheet 31/03/2003. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, ld. Counsel for the assessee, is that the ld. First Appellate Authority, without appreciating the fact and the evidences brought on record sustained the impugned addition which is clearly disregarded to the statutory provisions and judicial propositions. On the other hand, Shri Neil Philip, ld. DR, defended the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order. 2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief are that the assessee, an individual, derives income from salary, capital gains, business and other sources, declared total income of ₹ 2,55,870/- in its return filed on 30/03/2009. In response to the notice, issued to the assessee, u/s 143(2) of the Act submitted the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of facts, we are reproducing hereunder the relevant provision of the Act: Section 56(2)(vi): In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income tax under the head Income from other sources , namely :- (vi) where any sum of money, the aggregate value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, is received without consideration, by an individual or a Hindu Undivided Family, in any previous year from any person or person s on or after the 1st day or April, 2006 but before the 1st day of October, 2009, the whole of the aggregate value of such sum; We find that section 56 of the Act deals with income from other sources. Sub-clause (vi) to sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vident from return of income, balance sheet filed in the case of Ustad Zakir Hussain and the explanation of the assessee was merely brushed aside by the Assessing Officer. No adverse remark has been made by the Assessing Officer in the case of Ustad Zakir Hussain, thus, the adverse observation made in the assessment order is factually incorrect. Rather, the Assessing Officer did not consider the details and evidence filed by the assessee and still if he was having any apprehension regarding the explanation of the assessee nothing prevented him to call for the details from the assessee as well as from Zakir Hussain before resorting to the provisions of section 56(2)(vi) of the Act. Identically, the Hon ble Punajb Haryana High Court in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .T. Act. The existence of the expression without consideration in section 56(2)(v) cannot distract from the fact that in the impugned case, the sum of money received in question carried a liability of its repayment and the same was not received by the assessee with an absolute unfettered right of possession. Therefore, in the totality of circumstances of the present case, we find no justification to uphold the stand of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the impugned addition. Accordingly, the conclusion of the CIT(A), is affirmed We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that scope of section 56(2) (v) is very wide which included any amount received by the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has shown the property situated at Pune at ₹ 8,45,226/- in her balance sheet 31/03/2003. The stand of the Revenue is that, keeping in view, the inflation and steep rise in the property prices, the fair market value of the said property should be much higher. The Assessing Officer on conservative basis took the rateable value at 8% per annum of the investment and thus computed the property income at ₹ 45,513/- and taxed the same as income from house property . The assessee has disputed this valuation. Admitted position is that the assessee did not file any municipal valuation of the said property. The assessee has not explained how the valuation is towards higher side. The formula devised by the Revenue is also based upon person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
