TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeals on Interest Section 234D: Partially Allowed with Remaining Dismissed</h1> <h3>The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle IV (1), Versus Smt. S. Preetha,</h3> The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals regarding interest u/s 234D, while dismissing the remaining appeals as lacking merit. The orders were pronounced ... - Issues Involved:1. Unexplained cost of construction u/s 69B.2. Credit for self-assessment tax paid.3. Interest u/s 234D.4. Estimation of income from business.5. Addition of unexplained investment u/s 69B.6. Addition of unexplained money u/s 69A.Summary:1. Unexplained Cost of Construction u/s 69B:The Revenue's grievance was that the CIT(A) wrongly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards unexplained cost of construction u/s 69B. The Assessing Officer had added Rs. 87.77 lakhs based on the District Valuation Officer's estimate of Rs. 251.36 lakhs. The CIT(A) reduced the estimate to Rs. 183.78 lakhs, considering State PWD rates and self-supervision. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that similar relief was granted in the case of the assessee's husband.2. Credit for Self-Assessment Tax Paid:The Revenue contested the CIT(A)'s direction to give credit for Rs. 8.5 lakhs paid as self-assessment tax for AY 2006-07 in earlier years. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, noting that similar directions in the case of the assessee's husband had attained finality.3. Interest u/s 234D:The CIT(A) had deleted the interest charged u/s 234D. The assessee conceded that the Revenue's plea should be accepted due to the retrospective insertion of Explanation 2 to section 234D. The Tribunal decided this issue in favor of the Revenue.4. Estimation of Income from Business:For AY 2006-07, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the assessee's income from her business at 5% of turnover and allow depreciation. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the CIT(A) acted within his jurisdiction and the Revenue failed to provide contrary evidence.5. Addition of Unexplained Investment u/s 69B:For AY 2007-08, the Assessing Officer added Rs. 85 lakhs as unexplained investment based on a bank loan and valuation report. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, relying on the vendor's statement and the Delhi High Court's ruling in CIT vs. Ved Prakash Choudhary. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the lack of corroborative evidence from the Revenue.6. Addition of Unexplained Money u/s 69A:For AY 2008-09, the Assessing Officer added Rs. 4,43,830 as unexplained money. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, accepting the assessee's explanation that the amount was accounted for in her departmental store's cash book. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no justification to treat the amount as unexplained.Conclusion:I.T.A. Nos. 1313 and 1314/Mds/2012 were partly allowed regarding interest u/s 234D. The rest of the appeals (I.T.A. Nos. 1315, 1316, 1317, 1318, and 1319/Mds/2012) were dismissed as devoid of merits. Order pronounced on April 9, 2013, at Chennai.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
