TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1416
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition of Rs. 30,11,991/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained credit / deposits /investment made in bank accounts treated as undisclosed income u/s.69 of the I.T. Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 4,36,172/- instead of addition of Rs. 6,99,558/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of u/s.44AF of the I.T. Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. It is, therefore, prayed that the appellate order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be cancelled and the order of the A.O. may be upheld." 2. Briefly stated facts are that the case of the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s". On the contrary, ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the entire amount cannot be subjected to tax. He submitted that the Assessing Officer has estimated profit u/s.44AF. So, this amount would also be subject of Section 44AF. He submitted that the Assessing Officer ought to have restricted the disallowance to the extent of estimation of profit. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court rendered in case of CIT vs. Pradeep Shantilal Patel (2014) 42 taxmann.com 2 (Gujarat HC), the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Lovish Oberoi (2015) 54 taxmann.com 23 (Delhi HC) and also the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Subodh Gupta (2015) 5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls and enclosures filed before the AO. From these details it is observed that the non disclosure of the impugned bank accounts no. 9427, 61175, 61095 and 61506 with The Surat Peoples Cooperative Bank Ltd in his regular books of accounts is undisputed. The appellant had filed the revised return and admitted some income related to these bank accounts and even during assessment proceedings, the appellant had confessed this fact. But the main contention of the appellant was that the entire deposits in the said bank accounts during the year under appeal could not be his income as various credit entries were reflecting different nature of transactions. I have considered the explanation related to different deposits alongwith evidences placed befo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....383 3152882 GSFC FDR 153318 102212 51106 102212 408848 Sundry Debtors 49000 115500 89472 49000 302972 Transfer to Other Bank -- 60000 95000 55000 210000 Total 1276822 1366736 1491854 1895633 6031045 As far as bank interest, FDR interest and brokerage income are concerned, the appellant himself had admitted the same in the revised return of income filed by him and therefore, the AO is justified in treating the same as income. It is observed that the appellant had received deposits/loans.from Shri Bhudarji Mithal of Rs. 1,96,750/- and Rs. 1,20,000/- in bank account no. 9427 and 61175 respectively. Similarly, he had received loan from Smt. Hansaben I. Parmar of Rs. 15,250/- in bank account no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from the details submitted during the assessment proceedings that various deposits in the impugned four bank account included the maturity amount of various mutual funds and total maturity proceeds of Rs. 31,52,882/- were found to be deposited in the said bank accounts. This maturity amount included a sum of Rs. 11,65,241/- received on maturity of four mutual funds viz. DSP Equity Fund, F.T. India Flexi Cap, Kotak Opportunities and Reliance Eq. Opportunity fund and the cost of the same was Rs. 8,00,000/-. The details of the same are as under. Particulars A/c. No. 9427 Sale Value Rs. A/c. No. 61095 Sale Value Rs. A/c. No.61175 Sale Value Rs. A/c. No.661506 Sale Value Rs Total Sale Value Rs. DSP Eq. Fund: Cost Sales Value 40000 4000....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment year. Since the appellant was not the owner of these mutual funds, the capital gain on maturity of mutual funds of Rs. 3,65,241/- as deposited in the impugned four bank accounts cannot be treated as income in the hands of the appellant because it was a kind of loan to the appellant. I, therefore, direct the AO to give relief of Rs. 11,65,241/- to the appellant as explained investment. Regarding fixed deposit with GSFC, it is seen from the details that the appellant had offered only interest income in the revised return of income. However, no cogent evidences or explanation were submitted during assessment proceedings to establish the investment in GSFC fixed deposits as explained investment and therefore, the AO is justified in t....