2014 (1) TMI 1294

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....00 lakhs under the head "miscellaneous receipts". 3. Briefly stated the facts are as follows. 3.1 The assessee is an individual. For the concerned assessment year the return of income was filed on 15.12.2009 declaring a total income of Rs.3,11,783. The assessment was taken up for scrutiny by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. During the course of scrutiny assessment it was noticed that the assessee was in receipt of a sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs from his brother Shri P.N. Manjunath. The assessee stated that the amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs received from his brother was repayment of loan which was given by him to his brother way back in the year 2003. The assessee furnished to the Assessing Officer copies of the bank statement evidencing ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... filed an appeal before the first appellate authority. The CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under: "The assessee claims that this was the amount received from his elder brother Sri P N Manju8nath, as repayment of loan which he had taken from him. The assessee has filed copies of his bank accounts from 2003 onwards and it is seen that on three different dates an amount of Rs.7,50,000, Rs.2,00,000 and Rs.75,000 has been withdrawn from his account and transferred to M/s Soundarya Silk Process which was a loan to his brother Sri P N Manjunath. This fact is further substantiated by the statement of affairs filed by the assessee on 31.03.2004 and subsequent assessment years i.e. 2005- 06, 2006-07 where this amount has....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) was correct in holding that Rs.10,00,000 received was already included in repayment of loan which was amounting to Rs.30,00,000 when the total receipts of the assessee was Rs.40,00,000. 4. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) was correct in not considering the finding of the AO that the amount of Rs.10,00,000 received by the assessee was as per the agreement made by the assessee with Sri Manjunath to receive the consideration for not making a claim of his rights in the partnership concerns and the companies owned by Sri Manjunath". 6. The learned DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. Per contra the learned A....