TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 1022
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8,530 towards expenses claimed under the following heads: (Rs.) (i) Travelling and conveyance 53,610 (ii) Telephone and mobile 22,810 (iii) Vehicle maintenance 38,400 (iv) Driver's salary 30,000 (v) Depreciation on car 17,050 (vi) Consultancy charges 32,250 Total 1,94,120 Out of which, 25 percent was disallowed for the personal element involved in the expenditure. The Assessing Officer has also added Rs. 6 lakhs as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act for the gift/ loan received from his father Shri K. Jayaramapillai treating that he had no sufficient sources to advance Rs. 6 lakhs as gift. As regards disallowance of expenses claimed is concerned, the assessee took up the matter in appeal, but simply reiterated the grounds of appeal without making any argument before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who, while considering the grounds of appeal of the assessee in this regard has opined that the personal element of the assessee cannot be ruled out on these expenses, such as travelling and conveyance, telephone and mobile, vehicle mainte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the cash deposit amounting to Rs. 13,49,000 made by him during the relevant previous year. The assessee explained that he had received money from his father as well as two brothers had the means to make the gifts supposed to have been made by them. Hence, the assessee's claim as regards these persons was accepted. However, in the case of the assessee's father the source offered was not convincing. Hence this claim was not accepted for the reasons mentioned in the assessment order. The father of the assessee had no source to advance a sum of Rs. 6,00,000 as stated by the assessee. Though sufficient opportunities were provided before completing the assessment there was absolutely no mention of this person called Shri M. J. Vinod. If he had advanced Rs. 3,00,000 to the assessee's father which is supposed to have formed part of the said sum of Rs.6,00,000 it is not understood what prevented the assessee from stating so before completion of the assessment. Here again, just because Shri M. J. Vinod had the means to make the gift it is not proved that he had actually made the gift. As I understand the assessee has not produced any reliable evidence for the said sum of Rs.3,00,000. It i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Madhu Raitani v. Asst. CIT [2011] 10 ITR (Trib) 91 (Gauhati); [2011] 10 Taxmann.com 206 (ITAT) (TM) and Deputy CIT v. Oman International Bank SAOG [2006] 286 ITR (AT) 8 (Mumbai) ; [2006] 100 ITD 285 (Mumbai) [SB] to support the plea raised for deletion of addition as the assessee has furnished all necessary details before the Assessing Officer as well as before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who have not appropriately considered those details and since source of amount to gift/loan has been proved, therefore, no addition is called for. Moreover, it is not clear as to how the addition could be made under section 69, when the assessee is not maintaining any books of account and cash credit appearing in bank pass book is not the assessee's books of account and the same would not be includable under section 68 also as bank pass book supplied by the assessee is not book maintained by the assessee. Therefore, neither addition could be made under section 68 nor under section 69 because accepting small amount is not an investment. It was also submitted that the decision of the Third Member and Larger Bench decision can be compared with the decision of the Special Bench.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessing Officer and while considering the remand report of the Assessing Officer and material on record, he has not appropriately appreciated the facts and documentary evidence on record, which conclusively prove that the donor has sufficient source of fund to give small amount of Rs. 6,00,000 to the assessee and the decision cited are also in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the addition as made/confirmed was not called for, which may be deleted. We have heard rival submissions, perused the record and precedents relied upon by learned counsel for the assessee. It is found from the record that the assessee is a retired employee of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. As per the ITS data during the relevant previous year, the assessee had received a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 as fee for professional/technical services from IFFCO General Insurance Co. He had also made a cash deposit of Rs.13,49,000 in ING Vysya Bank Ltd. From the return of income filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2006-07, it was found that the assessee has offered the said sum of Rs. 3,00,000 as professional fees for assessment. As regards the cash deposit of Rs. 13,49,000, the assessee's representative has filed a....