9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red in confirming the order of the Ld. AO who had disallowed the claim of expenditure incurred for Rs. 19,046/- by stating it to be expenditure incurred for persons expenses. (ii) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the order of the Ld. AO who had made addition of Rs. 75,000/- on the ground of undisclosed rental income received by the assessee from NTPC. (iii) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the order of the Ld. AO who had made addition of Rs. 3,95,345/- on the ground of business receipt not disclosed in the return of income. (iv) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the order of the Ld. AO who had made addition of Rs. 12 lakhs being the amount deposited in the bank account of the assessee by holding that the source is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further upheld by the Ld. CIT (A) may be deleted. After hearing both sides, and perusing the materials on record, we find that the Ld. AO has disallowed 20% of the claim of conveyance expenditure aggregating to Rs. 95,233/- because no proper explanation was submitted by the assessee. Further there was scope for conveyance expenditure being incurred for personal purposes which is embedded in the total claim of conveyance expenditure. The assessee had also not furnished proper explanation before the Ld. CIT (A) therefore he confirmed the order of the Ld. AO. In this situation, we do not find much strength in the arguments advanced by the ld. AR. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of view that the disallowance of Rs. 20% of the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. AO from Form No. 26AS and AIR data that the assessee had received from various party's amount aggregating to Rs. 35,46,114/-. However, on perusing the return of income it was revealed that the assessee was declared only Rs. 16,38,081/- as his business receipts. Since the assessee could not justify the discrepancy, the ld. AO estimated 20.72% of the difference between the declared income and the total income received by the assessee as the undisclosed business income earned by him which works out to Rs. 3,95,344/- [(Rs. 35,46,114 - Rs. 16,38,081) = Rs. 19,08,081/-. 20.72 X Rs. 19,08,081 / 100 = Rs. 3,95,344]. Since the assessee did not provide any further explanation before the Ld. CIT (A), the Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the order of the Ld. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the order of the Ld. AO. Even before us, the Ld. AO could not furnish any convincing material to explain the source of the bank deposit. However, the AR argued by stating that the amount deposited in the bank was out of the income earned by the assessee which was already taxed. 13. After hearing both sides and perusing the fact that the assessee has disclosed total income of Rs. 3,39,490/- in his return of income for relevant assessment year and the addition sustained by us for Rs. 2,80,000/- towards undisclosed receipts for which telescoping effect has to be given and the accumulated earnings of the assessee, I am of the view that an addition of Rs. 6 lakhs would suffice to explain the source for the bank deposit of Rs. 12 lakhs. Accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
