Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

The Income-tax Officer, Ward. 9 (2) , Surat Versus Shri Kishore c. Parmar Prop: M/s. Parmar Boot

2015 (9) TMI 1416 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

Unexplained credit / deposits /investment - Held that:- The appellant had submitted the copies of assessment orders of both these persons for A.Y. 2007-08 and it is seen that the original investment amounting to ₹ 8,00,000/- had already been taxed in the hands of both these persons and therefore, the same cannot be taxed in the hands of the appellant again. Since all these accounts were in joint name, the sale proceeds were deposited in these bank accounts. As a result the appellant gets r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X



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 treating the entire maturity amount as income of the appellant In respect of sundry debtors and inter bank transfer entries, it is observe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the net profit on total turnover - Held that:- We find that the Assessing Officer has applied Section 44AF but adopted 8% of the net profit on total turnover. Ld. CIT(A) has adopted profit @ 5% which in our considered view this has been rightly adopted. As the Assessing Officer has invoked the provision of Section 44AF, then Section 44AF specifies of 5% but not of 8%. The Assessing Officer should not have adopted profit @ 8%. Accordingly this ground of Revenue’s appeal is also dismissed - De .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e case and in Law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 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 ₹ 4,36,172/- instead of addition of ₹ 6,99,558/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of u/s.44AF of the I.T. A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g assessment Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 6,99,558/- by estimating net profit @ 8% and the Assessing Officer also made addition of ₹ 55,64,745/- by invoking the provision of Section 69in respect of undisclosed cash deposits in undisclosed bank account. 3. Against this order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who after considering the submissions of the assessee, adopted the net profit @5.1% and restricted the addition to the extent of ₹ 4,36,172/- and i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

bank accounts before the Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer has recorded that the accounts were not disclosed in regular books of accounts. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in making addition as undisclosed amount credited into the bank accounts of the assessee and same was rightly treated as income from other sources . 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 estima .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lso the judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Subodh Gupta (2015) 54 taxmann.com 343 (Delhi). Ld. Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the coordinate Bench rendered in case of Kesharbhai Ghamarbhai Chaudhary vs. ITO (2012) 23 Taxmann.com273 (Ahmedabad-Trib.). On the contrary, ld. D.R. has placed reliance on the decision of the co-ordinate Bench referred in case of The ITO vs. Shri Kishorbhai Chhotalal Parmar in ITA No.1469/Ahd/2011. 5. We have heard .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

urr. A/c. No.2242 The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation given by the assessee and treated the total unrecorded investment of ₹ 55,64,745/- as the deemed income of assessee for the year under appeal. On appeal, however, ld. CIT(A) decided the issue as under: 6.3 I have gone through the assessment order as well as the contentions of the ARs. It is seen from the paper book filed by the ARs of the appellant that their main contentions were the same laid before the assessing offi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. 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 before the AO during assessment proceedings. It is seen that the deposits / investments of ₹ 55,64,745/- in the said bank accounts were mainly of following nature. a. Loans fro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

accounts and the same are dealt with as under. It is observed from the assessment order as well as the details submitted by the appellant that the other deposits in the impugned bank accounts were related to interest and other income and loans from friends and relatives which are summarized below. Particulars A/c. No. 9427 A/c. No. 61095 A/c. No.61175 A/c. No.661506 Total Bank Interest 313 363 579 317 1572 FDR Interest - 59916 59916 Bhudarji Mithal Loan 196750 - 120000 - 316750 Chandan K. Parmar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 ₹ 1,96,750/- and ₹ 1,20,000/- in bank account no. 9427 and 61175 respectively. Similarly, he had received loan from Smt. Hansaben I. Parmar of ₹ 15,250/- in bank account no. 9427. Also the appellant had received loan from Smt. Chandanben .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

en of establishing the genuineness of transaction and identity and credit worthiness of the depositors. It is observed that the AO had not rebutted the evidences filed by the appellant and also did not make any further inquiry. The AO also could not lead any evidence to establish that the impugned transactions were not genuine. Under such circumstances, when the source of funds credited in the impugned bank account was explained with evidence, the action of the AO to treat the amount of loan as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

assessment proceedings that various deposits in the impugned four bank account included the maturity amount of various mutual funds and total maturity proceeds of ₹ 31,52,882/- were found to be deposited in the said bank accounts. This maturity amount included a sum of ₹ 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 ₹ 8,00,000/-. The details of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Value 40000 40000 40000 40000 40000 68909 68909 68909 137819 344546 Total Cost Sale Value 800000 1165241 The ARs contented that the principal amount of the same was invested by Smt. Dayshreeben C. Parmar and Smt. Chandanben K. Parmar from their bank accounts during A.Y. 2007-08 and the necessary addition in respect of these investments were made in the assessment orders of both of them in AY. 2007-08. From the details submitted before the AO, it is observed (hat the contention of the ARs are fo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

incipal amount of investment as already taxed in earlier assessment year. Since the appellant was not the owner of these mutual funds, the capital gain on maturity of mutual funds of ₹ 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 ₹ 11,65,241/- to the appellant as explained investment. Regarding fixed deposit with GSFC, i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version