TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 843X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Decided partly in favour of assessee - 1376/Hyd/13, 1377/Hyd/13, 1378/Hyd/13, 1383/Hyd/13 - - - Dated:- 14-9-2016 - SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri S. Rama Rao, AR For The Revenue : Shri K.J. Rao and Smt U. Minichandran, DRs ORDER These four appeals pertain to the partners of M/s. Mamatha Silk Centre, Suryapet and have common issues. Therefore, these four appeals are clubbed and heard together and decided by this common order. All the said appeals are filed against the order(s) dated 29-08-2013 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai with camp office at Hyderabad having concurrent jurisdiction over assessees cases. 2. For the sake of discussion, the appeal in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act on 10-07-2007 and treated the same as invalid subsequently. Later, Assessee filed another revised return on 20-12-2007 declaring the originally returned total income of ₹ 1,04,000/-, thereby withdrawing the higher return of income filed in between on 25-09-2006. AO in the course of scrutiny proceedings has found out that assessee has to explain investment to an extent of ₹ 4,60,000/- in the money lending activity, as he has offered interest to an extent of ₹ 56,000/-. Estimating the interest @ 12%, the capital amount was determined at ₹ 4,60,000/- and on the reason that assessee has not explained the sources thereon, an amount of ₹ 4,60,000/- was added. AO has accepted the income as per the original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asis for confirming both the amounts. 5. Ld. DR however, relied on the orders of the CIT(A) to submit that assessee had various investments and has explained the sources by filing a revised return for AY. 2005-06. Therefore, the addition of ₹ 10,55,100/- as well as an amount of ₹ 4,60,000/- both are required to be confirmed on the fats of the case. 6. Ld. Counsel in reply submitted that assessee has offered higher income in the first revised income considering that there are investments and also excess stock found in the firm s hand. However, it was stated that excess stock in the hands of the firm arises in AY. 2007-08, whereas revised returns were filed in the individual hands for AY. 2005-06. 7. I have considered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the investments made in various other assets, including money lending activity considered by AO. Accordingly, assessee s grounds are partially allowed and AO is directed to accept the revised return offering the total income at ₹ 10,55,100/-. 8. In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed. ITA No. 1376/Hyd/2013 9. In this appeal, assessee filed her original return of income declaring total income at ₹ 63,876/- on 23-09-2005 much before the survey proceedings and declared additional income after the survey at ₹ 4,50,000/-. As in above case the offered income was added to the originally declared income. AO also disallowed the salary paid to Watchman and interest paid on borrowed funds at ₹ 50, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the AO. In this case, the total income is to be determined at ₹ 6,40,350/- as per the revised return filed by assessee, telescoping other addition separately made by the AO. AO is directed accordingly. This appeal of assessee is partly allowed. ITA No. 1383/Hyd/2013 13. In this case, assessee filed her original return of income on 29-03-2006 declaring total income at ₹ 1,05,200/-. Consequent to survey operations, assessee filed revised return declaring total income at ₹ 3,71,850/-. AO treated the said return of income as invalid . AO in the assessment has added the additional income declared to the total income originally offered. It was the contention that the income offered in the revised return includes the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
