TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s interest on PPF - whether it being exempt from tax ought to have been allowed as exempt income - Held that:- As assessee has contended that this claim of the assessee also can be verified by the AO before allowing the relief to the assessee. DR has not raised any objection in this regard. Accordingly, this issue is also restored to the file of the AO for deciding the same afresh after verifying the claim of the assessee that the amount in question represented interest on PPF account received for the earlier years. Addition of sum credited in the Capital account - Held that:- Respectfully following the order of the Tribunal on the similar issue in assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11, set aside the impugned order of Ld.CIT(A) for the year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.15,43,950/( vi) Disallowance of Motor car expenses Rs.3,20,236/ 3. Against the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before Ld.CIT(A) and after considering the submissions made by the assessee in writing as well as material available on record, Ld. CIT(A) reduced the addition of ₹ 3,20,236/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of motor car expenses to ₹ 1,60,118/- while the remaining additions made by the AO were confirmed by him. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on the following grounds:- 1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) er ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter deducting TDS was actually received by the assessee only in the previous year relevant to AY 2014-15, the same has been duly offered to tax in AY 2014-15. He has contended that this claim of the assessee can be verified by the AO before allowing the relief to the assessee. Since Ld. DR has not raised any objection in this regard, I direct the AO to verify the claim of the assessee and allow proper relief on such verification. As regards the balance addition of ₹ 44,420/- disputed in Ground Nos.1 2, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has not raised any contention. The said addition accordingly is confirmed and Ground Nos. 1 2 of the assessee s appeal are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. 5. Ground No.3 raised by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has contended that the documentary evidence to support and substantiate his explanation regarding foreign remittance of ₹ 22,40,000/was not available with the assessee at the relevant time and since the assessee was in the process of collecting the same, he could not comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) fixing the appeal for hearing from time to time. He has contended that the assessee now has gathered the documentary evidence and urged that the matter may be sent back to the A.O. for giving an opportunity to the assessee to explain his case by filing the said documentary evidence. Although the learned DR has not raised any objection for sending the matter back to the A.O. in the facts and circumstances of the case, he h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
