TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 1116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e involved in this ground relates to the taxability of advances received during the year by the assessee. This issue was decided by the Tribunal in ITA No. 6457/Mum/2008 at para-8 page-3 which is as under: We have considered the arguments of both the counsels and also perused the orders of lower authorities and the Paper Book submitted by the assessee. We find that for the year under consideration, the assessee has offered income for the year which includes an amount of ₹ 28,48,000/- out of opening advances to which an amount of ₹ 53,52,000/- has been added out of current year s advance totaling to ₹ 82,00,000/-. The total advances received during the year under consideration are at ₹ 1,10,10,062/-. We do not ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that during the year under consideration the assessee has received ₹ 1,10,10,062.00 out of which he has already offered ₹ 53,52,000.00 in the computation of income . The counsel pointed out that the assessee has also offered ₹ 27,58,062.00 in A.Y 2006-07 and ₹ 2,50,000.00 in A.Y 2007-08 out of the advance of ₹ 1,10,10,062.00 . In our humble opinion this issue needs further verification at the assessment stage, we therefore restore this issue back to the files of the AO. The AO is directed to verify the claim of the assessee that he has offered out of the total advance of ₹ 1,10,10,062.00, ₹ 27,58,062.00 in A.Y 2006 -07 and ₹ 2,50,000.00 in A.Y 2007-08 and if found correct only the balance amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he money has been borrowed in earlier years. Although the AO has mentioned that the amount has been borrowed for personal usage but has not brought any material on record to substantiate his claim. Further, the assessee being a film star has to maintain a certain set of standard of living for which he may require money from time to time. Even if assuming that the assessee has borrowed money to purchase luxurious car, that would justify looking to the nature of profession of assessee. Considering all these facts into totality, we do not find any merit in the submissions of the DR, findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are accordingly confirmed. Ground No. 2 of Revenue s appeal is dismissed. Following our own finding in ITA No. 6457/M/08, ground N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... computation of income. Therefore, adhoc disallowances as questioned in ground Nos. 3 to 7 are directed to be allowed as deduction for the year under consideration. Ground Nos 3 to 7 are accordingly allowed. 12. Ground No. 8 relate to the addition of ₹ 16,44,426/- as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. 13. A perusal of the assessment order shows that the assessee has claimed that the school fees of his children amounting to ₹ 16,44,426/- was paid by his mother-in-law. We find that similar issue had come up for hearing before us in ITA No. 6457/M/08 pertaining to A.Y. 2005-06 wherein we have held at paras 15 16 in pages 5,6 7 as under: We have considered the submissions. We find that on the basis of the infor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de to the School therefore it is on the assessee to explain the sources from which the payments have been made. Considering the facts in totality, in our humble opinion, the assessee has failed to discharge the onus cast upon him. We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) therefore addition of ₹ 16,44,426/- is confirmed. This ground of the assessee is dismissed. As the person is the same from whom the school fees have been claimed to have been paid and the source and the genuineness of the transaction has not been accepted by us in the earlier year, following our own findings, ground No.8 is dismissed. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
