TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 500
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT (A) Rohtak that the alleged payments under dispute received by the appellant and FDRS Interest credited to his (appellant) bank accounts is totally wrong. Even the TDS as per Form 26AS on that disputed amount are not claimed by the appellant nor the credit is given. Further the Learned CIT (A) has erred in ignoring the facts as per written submission which are on record and duly discussed in the order . 3. That to sustain the additions of Rs. 1278760/- by the Ld. CIT (A) under three heads are quite arbitrary and unjustified. 4. That ignoring the submission of the appellant by the Learned CIT (A) are contrary to the provisions of Law and facts of the case. Further That all the figures returned, books version, method of accountancy are d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11,605/- (IndusInd Bank), Rs. 8,47,592/- (National Insurance Company Limited) and Rs. 4,19,563/- (PNB FDR interest). Merely by stating that the amount did not relate to him when payments are received by him alone, i.e. in his bank accounts is not a satisfactory explanation. Moreover, the explanation in relation to the FDR interest as being relating to his wife is preposterous considering the fact that it has been credited to him and is hence, not accepted. In the absence of any explanation/ evidence to show that this amount did not relate to him, the addition was justified. I, therefore, sustain the said addition of Rs. 12,78,760/-." 4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid finding of the Ld. CIT(A), Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clerical mistake by Bank. Therefore, he requested that the addition in dispute may be deleted. 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and stated that no cogent explanation has been offered before the lower authorities. He further stated that the AO has rightly observed that assessee has not shown the receipts in his books of accounts and accordingly, the addition in dispute was rightly made by the AO. In view of above, Ld. DR requested that the Appeal of the Assessee may be dismissed and order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be upheld. 7. I have heard both the parties and perused the records available with me. I find that assessee is engaged in the business of sales of bikes and owner of bikes are insured with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dition of Rs. 4,19,563/- relating to FDR interest, from the records, it reveals that this amount relates to Smt. Sarita Yadav, W/o Sh. Vikas Yadav, who is a regular income tax assessee. The FDRs interest and TDS claim was duly made in her return. The TDS deducted under the assessee PAN actually its belong to her. Nor the interest is claimed by the assessee nor the benefit of TDS is availed. Hence, the addition in dispute is untenable and the same is deleted. My aforesaid views are fully supported by the ITAT, Delhi Bench decision dated 31.3.2015 in the case of ITO vs. Basant Kumar in ITA No. 4679/Del/2012 (AY 2009-10) wherein in almost identical circumstances, the Tribunal has upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition on the ....