TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt that the Ld.AO had made addition based on presumptions. He has not made any independent enquiries to substantiate his presumptions. CIT(A) has also simply endorsed the view of the Ld.AO. We are of the view that this nature of additions made by the Ld.Revenue Authorities cannot be justified - direct the AO to delete the additions made towards excess interest income earned in the hands of the assessee. - Decided against revenue. Addition towards appraiser fee - Held that:- The assessee herself had disclosed excess interest received which she could not disclose due to the Government regulations. Had she not disclosed such interest in her books, her profit would have been reduced and there would have been no necessity to claim deduction towards appraiser fee. However the assessee has disclosed the excess income diligently and also claimed the expense towards appraiser fee. The assessee has also furnished the details submitted by the appraisers before the Ld.AO in his remand proceedings. Revenue has come to the conclusion that the payment made by the assessee towards appraiser fee is not genuine just because on the summons issued by the Ld.AO certain appraisers failed to appear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the assessment years 2006-07 to 2013-14 respectively. (iii) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld.AO towards disallowance of appraiser fee amounting to ₹ 52,000/-, ₹ 48,000/-, ₹ 48,000/-, ₹ 72,000/- ₹ 52,000/- for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 2013-14 respectively. (iv) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of Ld.AO who had made addition by adhoc disallowance of salary expenses @ 20% which works out to ₹ 30,800/-, ₹ 26,905/- ₹ 15,889/- for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 2008-09 respectively. (v) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the Ld.AO who had levied interest U/s.234A, 234B 234C of the Act for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10, 20012-13 2013- 14 and U/s. 234B for the assessment years 2010-11 2011- 12 respectively. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in pawn broking business in the name of her Proprietary concern M/s. Abhaykumar. A search U/s.132 of the Act was conducted in the case of S/Shri Champalal Kishanlal and Champalal Kamalchand on 04.01.2012. In the course of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s ground raised by the assessee is decided against her. 5. Ground No.2(ii) : Disallowance of interest earned from pawn broking business for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2013-14:- The assessee had disclosed interest @ 1.33% per month towars the loan extended to the borrowers. She had also disclosed certain adhoc amount as interest earned from the borrowers. On query it was explained that as per Government norms interest more than 1.33% per month cannot be charged from the borrowers hence, she has disclosed the excess amount of interest collected from the borrowers separately. However the Ld.AO was of the view that normally in this line of business interest is charged not less than 2% per month from the borrowers. Therefore he computed the interest @ 2% and added to the income of the assessee. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) was also of the view that the Ld.AO has computed the interest income of the assessee fairly and in accordance with the prevailing market rates and thereby upheld his order. 5.1 Before us the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had maintained proper books of accounts and records, and therefore in absence of any contrary findings, additions cannot be made. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on record. From the facts of the case it is evident that the assessee herself had disclosed excess interest received which she could not disclose due to the Government regulations. Had she not disclosed such interest in her books, her profit would have been reduced and there would have been no necessity to claim deduction towards appraiser fee. However the assessee has disclosed the excess income diligently and also claimed the expense towards appraiser fee. The assessee has also furnished the details submitted by the appraisers before the Ld.AO in his remand proceedings. Further it is apparent that the Revenue has come to the conclusion that the payment made by the assessee towards appraiser fee is not genuine just because on the summons issued by the Ld.AO certain appraisers failed to appear before him. We are not agreement with this action of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. It would have been appropriate to conduct further enquiry on the appraisers before coming to such conclusion. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, we are of the considered view that the disallowance of appraiser fee by the Ld.Revenue Authorities is not appropriate. Hence we hereby direct th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
