TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1625X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Further, the contention of the assessee that he has transferred the trucks owned by him to his brother-in-law, Shri Nilesh Shah, as it had started new business of agriculture products, is not substantiated with any evidence as to how and on what terms, the same was transferred and what is the consideration received. Therefore, this contention has been rightly rejected by the lower authorities. However, we are of the considered view that it shall be in the interest of justice to restore the matter back to the file of the AO to verify whether income from trucks shown at ₹ 2,01,000/- under section 44AE by the assessee in the return of income include income from M/s.Chandan Carriers. If so, no further addition of ₹ 1,07,890/- to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Form no.36 by them before the Tribunal. Therefore, this ground of appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. 4. Second ground of appeal of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made on account of income from M/s.Chandan Carrier of ₹ 1,07,890/-. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the AO observed that the assessee is carrying on transport business in the name of M/s.Chandan Carrier. On enquiry, he found that Shri Nilesh Shah, owner of the Shri Nilesh Shah, did not own any truck for its transportation business. The business premise of Shri Nilesh Shah was owned by Shri Hasmukh M. Shah, father of the assessee, for which no rent was paid by M/s.Chandan Carrier. Further inquiry from HDFC Bank revealed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his poor financial conditions, Shri Nilsh Shah has not given any rent to H.M. Shah. Shri Nilesh Shah is brother-in-law of the assessee, and gave authorization in the bank only to safeguard his interest in his business, if any cheque is required to be signed and given to any person in his absence. 6. Without prejudice to the above, the assessee submitted that he has offered income of Rs,2,01,000/- under section 44AE of the Act in the revised return of income filed on 17.3.2008, copy of which was placed at page nos.4 to 8 of the paper books. It was submitted that once income was already considered and assessed by the AO u/s.44AE for his transportation income, no separate addition is required to be made, which was otherwise tantamount to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthorities and material available on record. In the instant case, the AO made addition of ₹ 1,07,890/- being income from M/s.Chandan Carriers, holding the assessee as benami of his brother-in-law Shri Nilesh Shah. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the same. The contention of the assessee is that he has shown income from truck under section 44AE of ₹ 2,01,000/- which includes income of ₹ 1,07,890/- from M/s.Chandan Carriers, and therefore, no separate addition of ₹ 1,07,890/- is warranted None of the lower authorities has verified this contention of the assessee. Further, the contention of the assessee is that he has transferred the trucks owned by him to his brother-in-law, Shri Nilesh Shah, as it had started new busin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
