2016 (2) TMI 693

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Representative submitted that the assessee claimed before the Assessing Officer that he received a loan of Rs. 10 lakhs from Shri N Krishnamurthy alias N Vaidyalingam. According to the ld. DR, the above said Shri N Krishnamurthy alias N Vaidyalingam is none other than the assessee's son. The Assessing Officer found that during the earlier assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed before the Assessing Officer that he has not received any loan from any one during the year under consideration. In view of the contradictory statement made before the Assessing Officer that he has not received any loan from any one on earlier occasion and subsequently he claimed that a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs was received as loan, the Assessing Officer doubted ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n any bank. The ld. Counsel further clarified that either in the original assessment proceedings or in the present proceedings the assessee never claimed that he has taken any loan from any person. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is not justified in assuming that the assessee has availed a loan of Rs. 10 lakhs from his son which remains to be explained. The ld. Counsel further submitted that in the earlier round of litigation, this Tribunal remanded the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer. In the meantime, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. According to the ld. Counsel, once the assessment was reopened, the earlier assessment would abate, therefore, the assessment made in the earlier assessment c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs was deposited in bank by Shri Subramanian and not by the assessee. When Shri Subramanian deposited the money and the bank account relates to all the family members, this Tribunal is unable to accept the contention of the ld. DR. Therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. When the deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs cannot be added in the hands of the assessee, the interest accrued on such deposit of Rs. 4,81,953/- also cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, the same is confirmed. 7. Now coming to the cross objection of the assessee, the only contention of the assessee is....