TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1227
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee has claimed interest of Rs. 1,50,000/-paid on housing loan in the computation statement, but has not produced the Bank statement in respect of loan availed and payment of interest. He therefore, disallowed the claim of interest for all the relevant A.Ys. On appeal, the CIT (A) considered the additional evidence filed by the assessee in the form of copies of certificates dated 20.08.2007 by Indian Overseas Bank, R.P. Road, Secunderabad for the financial years 2005-06 and 2006-07, vide certificate dated 5.5.2008 for the financial year 2007-08, vide certificate dated 20.07.2009 for financial year 2008-09, wherein the payment of interest on housing loan by the assessee was confirmed. A remand report from the AO was called for who submitted that the loan was availed by three persons i.e the assessee, his wife Smt.D.Aparna Reddy and his brother Shri D. Srinivas Reddy and since the share of each persons was evidenced from the certificates, the AO suggested to disallow equally from on each of the assessee's shares of interest. In rebuttal, the assessee stated that the entire loan taken from Indian Overseas Bank was utilized by the assessee for purchase of a house and therefore, i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ention explaining the unsecured loans. The CIT (A) called for a remand report from the AO. In the remand report dated 28.12.2015, the AO submitted that the confirmation letter of one Shri G. Somasekhara Reddy did not contain complete address, the confirmation letter of Smt. E. Lakshmamma did not contain PAN and the bank statement furnished is not clear and in the case of Shri Madhusudan Reddy, no confirmation letter is filed. In reply to the remand report, the assessee submitted that with regard to the loan of Rs. 9,75,000/- received from Shri Somasekhara Reddy, his PAN was provided and the amount was paid through cheque and directly credited to the a/c in the books of Sai Sudhir Infrastructure Ltd (SSIL). It was submitted that the cheque was received by SSIL and not by the assessee. With regard to the amount of Rs. 30.00 lakhs alleged to have been received from Sri Rama Subba Reddy, which is confirmed by his wife Smt. E. Lakshmamma, since he has passed away, the assessee submitted that her address was clearly mentioned in the letter of confirmation and that the amount was paid through Banking channels and the same was credited to the assessee's a/c. The CIT (A) has accepted the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... lakhs made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, assessee could not establish the unsecured loan to the extent of Rs. 12,88,627/- as he did not furnish any details such as name and addresses of the creditors and their respective PAN Nos etc. Aggrieved by the addition made by the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A), who granted relief in respect of loan received from assessee's wife Smt. D. Aparna Reddy for an amount of Rs. 12,88,627/-. However, in respect of Rs. 10.00 lakhs alleged to have been received from Obulapuram Mining Co. (P) Ltd, it was claimed to have been paid through banking channels and that the same was accounted for in the books of Sai Sudhir Infra Co. and the company in turn to the assessee's a/c. The assessee filed additional evidence before the CIT (A) and the CIT (A) had called for a remand report. On receipt of the remand report, the CIT (A) held that the details of the transaction for the alleged payment of Rs. 10.00 lakhs are not furnished and therefore, it is not possible to infer that the transaction is not a revenue item. He accordingly confirmed the addition of Rs. 10.00 lakhs. Before us, the learned Counsel f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entity of the remitter is confirmed. But, it does not prove the nature of the remittance, nor does it prove the creditworthiness of the creditor. The assessee has not filed any evidence to prove these two conditions even before us. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- is confirmed. 12. As regards grounds 4 and 5, brief facts are that during the financial year 2009-10, the assessee received gift of shares of 17,64,874 fully paid up equity shares of M/s. SSIL, whose fair market value was adopted @ Rs. 33.20 ps per share, with an aggregate value of Rs. 5,85,93,815/- vide separate gift deeds executed on 5.1.2010 in favour of the assessee by Sri E. Yella Reddy and Smt. El Sailaja Reddy also gifted 7,10,271 shares with an aggregate value of Rs. 2,35,81,097/-. Thus the total value of the shares received as gift was Rs. 8,21,74,914/-. The documents to this effect were found during the course of search and the assessee offered to admit the said sum as his undisclosed income in his individual hands, in the statement recorded during the course of search. However, the assessee failed to disclose the same in his return of income filed in response to the notice u/s 153A of the assessee. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame it stands. Therefore, the shares standing in the names of E. Yella Reddy and E. Sailaja Reddy belong to them only and though they are the cousins of the assessee, they do not fall within the meaning of a relative u/s 56(2) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the grounds of appeal Nos. 4 and 5 are dismissed. 15. As regards Ground No.7, the assessee had shown agricultural income of Rs. 26,57,500/- after deducting expenses incurred on agriculture of Rs. 11,38,500/- but did not furnish any evidence in support of land holding, the expenditure claimed, nature of crops cultivated and evidence in support of sale of agricultural produce etc., Therefore, the AO treated the entire receipt of agricultural income of Rs. 37,96,000/- as "income from other sources" . In the appeal before the CIT (A), the assessee produced the evidence that he was in possession of two parcels of land aggregating to 29.86 acres but did not produce any evidence that he has carried out agricultural operations or with regard to the expenditure claimed by the assessee. The CIT (A) had in fact called for a remand report from the AO wherein the AO reported that the assessee is engaged in the business of construction activit....