TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of unexplained investment made in Noida plot amounting to ₹ 58,63,750/- which could not be co-related with the cash deposit in HDFC and ICICI Bank s account. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting the assessee s plea relating to receipt of rent of ₹ 4,32,000/- from Mayur Vihar and Azad Apartment from April, 2009 and December, 2009 and deposited in HDFC Bank account on 06.11.2009, which the assessee could not co-related with supporting Rent Agreements/ Lease deeds. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting the assessee s plea relating to receipt of ₹ 4,26,420/- from M/s Om Dairy, which was claimed to have been deposited in ICICI Bank account on 11.05.2009, which the assessee could not establish. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of household expenses to ₹ 5,00,000/- which appears not be justified keeping in view the status of the assessee, who is owner of three properties and maintaining two luxury cars for her personal purposes. 6. The appellant crave leave to add, allow or amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s from the appellant s rental income of ₹ 4,32,000/-. The assessee had shown rental income of ₹ 8,40,000/- during the year and therefore, the explanation for source of ₹ 4,32,000/- needs to be accepted. However, the appellant had shown the source of cash deposit of ₹ 7,50,000/- made on 03.12.2009 in HDFC bank as partly from advance of rent of ₹ 2,64,000/-. This source of cash deposit is not acceptable as the appellant had not filed any evidences during the appellate proceedings regarding receipt of any rent advance for ₹ 2,64,000/-. Further, the appellant did not6 make any such claims regarding receipt of advance rent before the A.O. during assessment proceedings. Therefore, addition of ₹ 2,64,000/- is sustained as the appellant s present claim regarding receipt of advance of rent is not supported by any evidence. Thus, the appellant is given relief of ₹ 4,32,000/- only from the above claim regarding source from rental income of ₹ 6,96,000/- and balance addition of ₹ 2,64,000/- (696000-432000) made by A.O. is sustained. 15. Source explained as gifts from parents: ₹ 6,00,000/- The appellant had explained s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts made in appellant s bank accounts. 17. Further, appellant had stated that this loan was taken by pledging of personal jewellery and that this jewellery was relieved by her in December, 2009 by paying an interest of ₹ 1,45,644/- to Muthoot Finance Ltd. The appellant during the appellate proceedings failed to explain the source of this interest payment of ₹ 1,45,644/-. The explanation of the appellant that the source of the cash deposit of ₹ 15,00,000/- as loan taken from M/s. Muthoot Finance Ltd. is only an afterthought as no such explanation was submitted during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the appellant s explanation for source of cash deposits of ₹ 5,00,000/- on 04.11.2009, ₹ 6,00,000/- on 12.11.2009 and for ₹ 4,00,000/- on 13.11.2009 in her bank account with ICICI Bank is not acceptable and thus the addition of ₹ 15,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 is sustained. 18. Source explained as from the sale of dairy products: ₹ 7,50,000/- The appellant had explained the source of cash deposit of ₹ 7,50,000/- made on 11.05.2009 in ICICI Bank as from the sale of dairy products for & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment proceedings. The evidence now filed during the appellate proceedings for the sale of jewellery is not acceptable as the cash bills produced by the appellant are not verifiable as proper address of the jewellery shops are not mentioned on these cash bills now filed. Therefore, this evidence now filed during appellate proceedings can only be considered as an afterthought and as these evidences are not verifiable, the same cannot be accepted as admissible evidence . Thus, I am constrained to sustain the addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 20. Source explained as from the sale of live stock: ₹ 28.17.000/- The appellant during the appellate proceedings had explained the source of cash of ₹ 1,68,000/- deposited on 06.11.2009, ₹ 2,00,000/- deposited on 20.11.2009, ₹ 6,00,000/- deposited on 01.12.2009, ₹ 6,00,000/- deposited on 02.12.2009 and ₹ 4,86,000/- deposited on 03.12.2009 in HDFC Bank, ₹ 5,00,000/- deposited on 30.11.2009 and ₹ 2,63,000/- deposited on 03.12.2009 in ICICI Bank as out of the sale of live stock. The appellant had not shown any income fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant during the year and further gets relief for the source of ₹ 4,26,420/- on the sale of dairy products. Thus, the appellant gets a total relief of ₹ 8,58,420/- (432000 + 426420) only and the balance addition of ₹ 61,69,580/- (7028000 - 858420) made by the Assessing Officer as appellant s unexplained cash deposit in her bank accounts is therefore sustained. Further, a separate addition of ₹ 21,320/- (5% of 4,26.420/-) under section 44AF as offered by the appellant vide her letter dated 16.01.2015 is to be made a by the Assessing Officer as her income from dairy business. 23. The Assessing Officer had also made an addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- for low household withdrawals of the appellant. As per the return of income, the appellant had shown rental income of ₹ 8,40,000/- and during the assessment proceedings, she had also produced evidence for dairy business of ₹ 4,26,420/-. Therefore, separate addition made by AO for low household withdrawals is not sustainable and thus addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- for the low house hold withdrawals is deleted. 9. Ground No.1 raised by Revenue is general in nature and therefore does not r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
