TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (6) TMI 509
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in deleting the addition of Rs.14,88,972/- on account of professional receipt on the following grounds : (i) that the assessed during the course of appeal hearing contended that the amount shown in the TDS certificates represents the current professional fees receipts and also the realization out of sundry debtors. (ii) That the assessee also submitted that the Sundry debtors were offered as income during the earlier years on accrual basis. (iii) That the assessee as per TDS certificates filed with the return total receipt of professional charges should be Rs.14,10,409/- whereas in the profit and loss account professional fees credited to Rs.28,99,381/-. So, there is a discrepancy of Rs.14,88,972/- which was added back to the total inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt as well as in the return does not tally the amount as reveals from the TDS certificates enclosed with the relevant return. Hence, there is a discrepancy of Rs.14,88,972 which was added to the income of assessee. 5.1. On appeal the ld. CIT(A) deleted the same by observing as under :- "I have carefully perused the above. It is clear from the above that the appellant has been regularly admitting the professional receipts in respect of the bills raised during the previous year, irrespective of the amounts received during the previous year. As can be seen from the table in page-4, the professional receipts admitted in the returns filed for the Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2005-06 are less than the professional receipts as per the TDS certi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appeal of the Revenue. 7. The only issue raised by the assessee is relating to confirmation of addition of Rs.6,39,019/- in respect of investment in Mutual Funds for A.Yr.2005-06 and Rs.29,00,000/- for A.Yr.2006-07. 8. The brief facts are that the Assessing Officer while doing the scrutiny assessment observed that the assessee made the investment of Rs.6,55,119/- in Standard Chartered Mutual Fund during the relevant financial year. In course of hearing the assessee was asked to explain the source, nature and mode of payment of such investments along with supporting papers and documents. But he failed to explain the same along with substantial and documentary evidences. As such the investment of Rs.6,55,119/- is treated as unexplained.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... view of the above the investments in Mutual fund made by the appellant remains unsubstantiated. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.6,39,019/- is confirmed." 9. After hearing the rival submissions and on careful perusal of materials available on record and taking into consideration of the various case laws relied on by the ld. Counsel appearing for assessee which was placed at pages 1 to 51 of the paper book are as under : 1. Kiran Devi Rajgarhia vs ITO - ITA No.1027/Kol/2009(ITAT, Kol) 2. ITO Vs Dutta Construction - ITA No.2013/Ahd/2008(ITAT,Ahd) 3. Tripurti Securities Limited vs DCIT (2010) 132 TTJ 257 (ITAT,Mum) 4. Malti Gupta vs ITO - ITA No.18/Ind./2010(ITAT, Indore) 5. Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited vs CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del) ....