TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 952X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee himself is the Director of the company in which the interest is shown to be payable and the assessee has not challenged the assessment completed in the hands of the company. Therefore, the interest income receivable by the assessee is taxable in the hands of the assessee even if it is not yet received by the assessee. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT (A) on this issue. Addition on “unexplained loan creditor" - Held that:- When the AO has not offered any comment, it is to be presumed that he has satisfied with the submissions of the assessee. If at all any addition is to be sustained, it can only be of ₹ 2.00 lakhs which is still shown to be payable to the assessee out of the advance of ₹ 10.00 lakhs given to his wife. Therefore, we sustain the addition of ₹ 2.00 lakhs only. The assessee gets a relief of ₹ 12,72,000. Therefore, the assessee’s grounds of appeal for the A.Y 2007-08 on this issue are partly allowed. As regards the loan from the assessee’s daughter-in-law for the A.Y 2008-09 an amount of ₹ 8,30,000 has been shown to have been cleared through SBH and only a sum of ₹ 1,90,000 was brought in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding the issue to the file of the AO at this stage for re-verification of assessee’s contentions. In view of the same, we are inclined to accept the contentions of the assessee and the assessee’s appeals for the A.Ys 2007-08 to 2009-10 are allowed - ITA Nos.566 to 570/Hyd/2013, ITA Nos.71 to 74 /Hyd/2013 - - - Dated:- 21-4-2017 - Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member, And Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member For The Assessee : Shri P. Balakrishna For The Revenue : Shri K.J. Rao, DR ORDER Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. Both the assessees before us, are husband and wife. There was a survey u/s 133A of the Act in the case of the assessee before us on 29.9.2010. During the course of survey, certain issues were noticed. Therefore, the assessments for A.Y 2005-06 to 2009-10 were reopened u/s 147 of the Act and certain disallowances and consequential additions were made. Common issues are involved in the appeals of both the parties. Therefore, all the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common and consolidated order. 2. Since common issues are involved in the case of Shri T. Seshagiri Rao in all the A.Ys, each of the issues is dispo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmation of the part of the addition for each of the A.Ys by the CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the AO and the CIT (A), whereas the learned DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that except for reiterating the submissions made before the authorities below, the learned Counsel for the assessee has not been able to produce before us any evidence whatsoever in support of earning of the agricultural income as explained by the assessee in his returns of the income for the respective A.Ys. We find that the CIT (A) has considered all the aspects of the issue before allowing certain part of the income as agricultural income. The assessee has not filed any evidence to rebut the findings of the CIT (A). As the order of the CIT (A) is a well considered order, we do not see any reason to interfere with the same on the issue of agricultural income for all the A.Ys. The assessee s grounds of appeal for all the A.Ys against disallowance of part of the agricultural income are accordingly rejected. Interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Creditors 8. (i) Addition of ₹ 14,72,000 under the head unexplained loan creditor for the A.Y 2007-08 and (ii) addition of ₹ 1,90,000 for the A.Y 2008-09. 9. Brief facts of the case for the A.Y 2007-08 are that during the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has shown loans to the tune of ₹ 32,07,949 out of which ₹ 22,72,000 is from his wife Smt. T. Raj Bhansi Devi of and the balance is from his Sons and Daughter-in-law. The AO disbelieved the claim of loans from his wife and children and treated them as unexplained credits. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) who deleted the additions of loans from the assessee s Sons and Daughter-in-law on the basis of the remand report submitted by the AO. However, he confirmed the addition of the loan from his wife to the extent of ₹ 14,72,000 disbelieving it. 10. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has claimed before the CIT (A) that out of the amount of ₹ 22,72,000 received from his wife, an amount of ₹ 10.00 lakhs was the repayment of the advance given by the assessee himself during the financial year 2005-06 and the rest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) the assessee has submitted the details of the bank a/c and the CIT (A) has observed that an amount of ₹ 8,30,000 has been shown to have been cleared through SBH and only a sum of ₹ 1,90,000 was brought in cash from the cash received by her from the assessee in earlier A.Y. The CIT (A) has clearly observed that the assessee has not filed any reliable evidence to explain the cash credit of ₹ 1,90,000. The assessee has not filed any details before us also to substantiate his claim. In view of the same, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the CIT (A) on this issue and the assessee s ground of appeal for the A.Y 2008-09 is rejected. Addition on account of investment in construction of commercial complex: 14. This issue arises in the A.Y 2009-10. Brief facts are that the assessee had constructed a commercial complex in Plot No.17, ECIL Cross Road, Hyderabad. Since the assessee did not furnish the details of the cost of construction, the AO made a reference to the Valuation Cell to ascertain the cost of construction. The valuation cell requested some more time to do the provisional assessment since the assessee has not submitted any details ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the financial year 2004-05, the assessee had invested a sum of ₹ 25,62,500 in construction of the building as is evident from the Balance Sheet as on 31.3.2005. He submitted that though the assessee has furnished the details of investment year-wise and also the details as to how the same is reflected in the assessee s balance sheets, none of the authorities below has really verified the same. He drew our attention to page 24 of the paper book filed on 8.2.2017 and also page 24 of the paper book filed for the A.Y 2005-06 to 2009-10. The learned DR, however, supported the orders of the authorities below. 17. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the assessee has filed the details of yearwise investment before us and further that these investments were also reflected in the balance sheet of the respective A.Ys and none of the authorities have verified the same. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the issue to the AO and direct the AO to verify the contentions of the assessee and since the CIT (A) has considered the difference in the valuation as per the CPWD rates and the State PWD rates and has given relief of 10% accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ief on these issues, he did not grant any relief. However, as regards the exemption for self supervision, the CIT (A) has allowed 15% as against 7.5% allowed by the Departmental Valuation Officer. Thus, the CIT (A) granted partial relief and the assessee is in second appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1) The order or the learned Commissioner or Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous 2) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ) erred in allowing the eligible relief' on spread over of construction period 3) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering 15%, relief on difference between CPWD rates and State PWD rates which is to be allowed. 4) The learned CIT (A) ought to have considered the CPWD rates includes contractors profit of 11% and materials, contingencies are raised by 3% and water and electricity raised by 1% which has to give due consideration and necessary relief. 5) The learned CIT (A) erred in not considering difference or rates or Tiles and others and not given opportunity for producing the bills. 6)) The learned CIT (A) erred in not considering the fact that the assessee s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n made by the AO of ₹ 2,41,256. Similarly in the A.Y 2008-09, similar addition of ₹ 14,72,000 and in the A.Y 2009-10, the additions of ₹ 2,31,950 were confirmed. 25. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has submitted the relevant details such as the financial statements for all the three A.Ys and the AO during the remand proceedings has not offered any comments due to which the assessee s contention should be treated as having been accepted by the AO and the addition should be deleted. 26. The learned DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 27. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the assessee has claimed these amounts for the relevant A.Ys as remission of advances given by her to her husband in the earlier years and has submitted relevant financial statements. During the remand proceedings, the AO has verified the same, but did not offer any comment, leave alone, any adverse comments. Therefore, it has to be deemed that the AO is satisfied with the contention of the assessee. Since considerable time has lapsed, we are of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
