TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 839
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....days in filing this appeal and to this effect Assessee filed a petition requesting for condonation of delay. Assessee also filed an affidavit affirming the reasons for the delay mentioned in the petition for condonation of delay. After hearing the parties and perusing the record, we find that Assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for filing the appeal within the stipulated time, and, therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. Ground No. 1 & 4 are general in nature. Ground No. 2 is pertaining to the addition with reference to the expenditure incurred on construction of compound wall. Ground No. 3 is with reference to the addition towards domestic expenses on estimate basis. Ground No. 4 is pertaining to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence of drawal in wife account and of agricultural income, Ld CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 4.2 After considering the rival contentions we are not inclined to accept assessee contentions. No evidence was furnished against the withdrawal from any other source towards domestic expenditure .in view of smallness of the personal expenditure claimed, we consider it reasonable to restrict the disallowance to Rs. 30,000/- as against Rs. 40,000/- added by the AO. This ground is partly allowed. 5. In the result appeal for AY 2004-05 is partly allowed. ITA No. 1412/Hyd/2011 for AY 2005-06 6. Ground No. 1 & 5 are general in nature. Ground No. 4 is charging of interest u/s 23A, 234B and 234C, which is consequential in nature. 7. Ground N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0,000/- stated to have received by Assessee against the agreement entered for sale of land on various dates. During the course of assessment proceedings, Assessee had filed copy of agreement of sale executed on 01-06- 2005 in favour of Sri Mannem Rami Reddy and Sri Mannem Sasi Reddy for the sale of land and also submitted copies of receipts for the amounts received by Assessee. Assessee submitted that an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- was received by him from the said parties for purchase of land but that the sale did not finalize. The AO did not accept the explanation and treated the entire amount of Rs. 30,00,000 as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO. 12. We have considered the submis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ground raised by Assessee is dismissed. 16. In the result, appeal for AY 2006-07 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 1414/Hyd/11 for AY 2007-08 17. Ground No. 1 & 5 are general in nature. Ground Nos. 2 & 3 are pertaining to addition of Rs. 16,11,442/- on account of interest receipt from M/s NVM Seetharamanjaneya Constructions and the addition of Rs. 19,80,092/- on the ground that the same represent the interest on capital from Seetharamanjaneya Constructions. 18. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that as per the seized document, vide Annexure No. A/DNR/06, Assessee was paid interest amounting to Rs. 16,11,442/- on his capital by the firm M/s NVM Constructions. He further noted that Assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted that in the regular return of income filed, the partnership firm did not debit such interest paid to the partners. It was submitted that according to provisions of section 28(v), in case the amount of interest, salary, bonus or commission is not allowed as a deduction u/s 40(b) in the hands of the firm, such amount shall not be included in the hands of the partner. 21. The learned counsel placed on record the decision of coordinate bench in the case of G. Venkat Rao and G. Madhava Rao in ITA No. 1075 & 1076/Hyd/2011, order dated 10-07-2012 where on similar set facts coordinate bench decided as under: "8. With respect to the addition of Rs. 6,06,332/-, the assessee submitted a copy of the return of income for the assessment year 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... addition of Rs. 8,34,799/- on the ground that the same represent the interest on capital from Seetharamanjaneya Constructions. Ground No. 4 is regarding charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, which is consequential in nature. 26. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that as per the seized document, vide Annexure No. A/DNR/08, Assessee was paid interest amounting to Rs. 3,73,087 on his capital by the firm M/s NVM Constructions. He further noted that Assessee was also paid interest of Rs. 8,34,799/- by the firm M/s SVK Seetharamanjaneya Constructions, as per seized document, vide Annexure No. A/DNR/04, during the year relevant to AY 2008-09. However, stating that both such amounts had not been offere....