TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1416
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 30,11,991/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained credit / deposits /investment made in bank accounts treated as undisclosed income u/s.69 of the I.T. Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 4,36,172/- instead of addition of Rs. 6,99,558/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of u/s.44AF of the I.T. Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. It is, therefore, prayed that the appellate order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be cancelled and the order of the A.O. may....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the assessee and same was rightly treated as "income from other sources". On the contrary, ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the entire amount cannot be subjected to tax. He submitted that the Assessing Officer has estimated profit u/s.44AF. So, this amount would also be subject of Section 44AF. He submitted that the Assessing Officer ought to have restricted the disallowance to the extent of estimation of profit. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court rendered in case of CIT vs. Pradeep Shantilal Patel (2014) 42 taxmann.com 2 (Gujarat HC), the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Lovish Oberoi (2015) 54 taxmann.com 23 (Delhi HC) and also the judg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore the assessing officer. They produced before me all the submissions alongwith various details and enclosures filed before the AO. From these details it is observed that the non disclosure of the impugned bank accounts no. 9427, 61175, 61095 and 61506 with The Surat Peoples Cooperative Bank Ltd in his regular books of accounts is undisputed. The appellant had filed the revised return and admitted some income related to these bank accounts and even during assessment proceedings, the appellant had confessed this fact. But the main contention of the appellant was that the entire deposits in the said bank accounts during the year under appeal could not be his income as various credit entries were reflecting different nature of transactions.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Jayshree C. Parmar Loan 182000 340600 117000 344700 984300 Brokerage- - - -- -- 48105 48105 Maturity proceeds of various Mutual Funds 582191 432611 973697 1164383 3152882 GSFC FDR 153318 102212 51106 102212 408848 Sundry Debtors 49000 115500 89472 49000 302972 Transfer to Other Bank -- 60000 95000 55000 210000 Total 1276822 1366736 1491854 1895633 6031045 As far as bank interest, FDR interest and brokerage income are concerned, the appellant himself had admitted the same in the revised return of income filed by him and therefore, the AO is justified in treating the same as income. It is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nben K. Parmar and Smt. Jayshree C. Parmar (Rs. 3,16,750 + Rs. 15250 + Rs. 5,30,450 + Rs. 9,84,300) as explained loan transaction and not to treat the same as an income of the appellant. The appellant therefore, gets relief of Rs. 18,46,750/-. It is also observed from the details submitted during the assessment proceedings that various deposits in the impugned four bank account included the maturity amount of various mutual funds and total maturity proceeds of Rs. 31,52,882/- were found to be deposited in the said bank accounts. This maturity amount included a sum of Rs. 11,65,241/- received on maturity of four mutual funds viz. DSP Equity Fund, F.T. India Flexi Cap, Kotak Opportunities and Reliance Eq. Opportunity fund and the cost of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al investment amounting to Rs. 8,00,000/- had already been taxed in the hands of both these persons and therefore, the same cannot be taxed in the hands of the appellant again. Since all these accounts were in joint name, the sale proceeds were deposited in these bank accounts. As a result the appellant gets relief of Rs. 8,00,000/- in the principal amount of investment as already taxed in earlier assessment year. Since the appellant was not the owner of these mutual funds, the capital gain on maturity of mutual funds of Rs. 3,65,241/- as deposited in the impugned four bank accounts cannot be treated as income in the hands of the appellant because it was a kind of loan to the appellant. I, therefore, direct the AO to give relief of Rs. 11,6....