TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. Though, the assessee has filed the copy of the court order in support of the contention that Smt. Deepa has received the money, as rightly pointed out by the Ld. A.O and CIT(A), the assessee has not been able to prove with substantial evidence that this is the money advanced by Smt. Deepa, particularly when the conditions of granting alimony have not been fulfilled by Smt. Deepa. In view of the same, the grounds are rejected. Deduction claimed u/s 80U denied. - ITA No. 789/Hyd/2016 - - - Dated:- 20-6-2018 - SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao For The Revenue : Shri M. Sitaram ORDER PER P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M.: This is assessee s appeal for the A.Y 2006-07 against the order of the CIT(A)-9, Hyderabad, dated 22.03.2016. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, was searched u/s 132 of the IT Act on 07.11.2007. Thereafter, a notice u/s 153A of the IT Act was issued to the assessee calling for his return of the income for the A.Ys. 2002-03 to 2008-09. In response to the notices, the assessee filed his returns and admitting additional income. 3. The A.O found that the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n award on 19.04.2003 in favour of Smt. Deepa, as per which, she received ₹ 3,00,000/- in cash as alimony towards final settlement. The assessee explained that the cash received by his daughter was given to him on 27.07.2005 which was brought into his books of accounts and fixed deposits of each ₹ 1,50,000/- were made on the same day. In support of this claim the assessee furnished a copy of the order of the court and other relevant documents. The A.O observed that the court had ordered Smt. Deepa to keep ₹ 2 lakhs in the fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank till her minor child attained majority and the receipt for the same was supposed to be handed over to the Court by 26.04.2003, but no such fixed deposits were made by Smt. Deepa. He also disbelieved the assessee s contentions because the alimony was received by Smt. Deepa in the year 2003, whereas the assessee had brought the same into his books on 27.07.2005 after with a gap of more than two years. He also observed that the fixed deposits should have also been made in the assessee s daughter s name and the assessee has not explained as to why the fixed deposits are made in his name. Therefore, he brought th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in appreciating that the cheque in question has been issued as security and that no amount has actually been advanced by the appellant to M/s Raja Rajeswari Steel Traders. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that these is no material evidence, what so ever, in support of the impugned money lending business of the appellant. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in conf irming the addition of ₹ 3,00,000/- made towards unexplained deposits made in post off ice. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the source for the deposit of ₹ 3,00,000/- has been duly explained by the appellant, that the amount represents alimony received by his daughter Smt. Deepa Agarwal in the year 2003 and that the amount has been given to the appellant on 27.07.2005 on which date it has been brought in the books of the appellant. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that there is no delay in depositing the amount of ₹ 3,00,000/- received from the appellant s daughter. 11. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in conf irming the addition of ₹ 3,00,000/- even though the A.O has not brought any evidence on record in this regard by making enquiry with Smt. Deepa A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... need to admit the same as it would only result in duplication of grounds. Therefore, the grounds are adjudicated as under. 6. I find that the grounds No. 1 to 3 are against the assessment made u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act, whereas ground of appeal Nos. 12 to 14 are against the estimation of net profit at @ 6% of sales. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue in grounds 12 to 14, is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the B Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee s own case for the A.Ys 2005-06 and 2007-08, wherein it has been held that unless there is an incriminating material found during the course of search for rejection of books of accounts, the assessee s books of account cannot be rejected and income estimated. 8. The Ld. DR, however, supported the orders of the authorities below. 9. Having regard to the rival contentions and material on record, I find that the A.O and CIT(A), have rejected the books of account for all the six years and have estimated the profit @ 6% of sales and this issue was considered by the Coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the assessee s own case for the A.Ys 2006-06 2007-08 and has deleted the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment proceedings, the explanation of the appellant was that he never advanced any loans to the above persons and cheques were obtained since they intend to borrow money from the appellant. However, actual advancing of money had never taken place. However, on examining the proprietor of Diamond Steel Corporation, Aslam Hussain, he stated that he borrowed money of ₹ 1,15,000/- and the cheques were given as a security for the said amount. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO also examined Mr. Md. Shamim, wherein he stated that the cheque was issued by him to the appellant f or purchase of scrap. However, the transaction of purchase of scrap never took place. However, cheque was lying with the appellant and the AO observed that in the balance sheet of the appellant for the year ending 31-03-2005 Mr. Shamim is reflected his debtor for ₹ 1 lakh. Thus, he concluded that in view of the contradictory statements made by both the parties, made addition of ₹ 2,15,000/-. 7. On appeal before the CIT(A), it was submitted bef ore the CIT(A) that those blank cheques were obtained from the persons, who intended to borrow from him. However, the appellant stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
