TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 817
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment by the AO. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,00,000/- made u/s.69 of the Act, being the amount shown as payment towards purchase of flat on 31.03.2008, treated as unexplained investment by the AO. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made u/s.68 for the sale price of gold ornaments of Rs. 4,56,000/- u/s. as explained cash credit. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made u/s. 68 of the I T Act, as treating the share of the assessee of Rs. 4,24,000/- out of the maturity value of IVP as beneficiary of the trust as unexplained cash credit. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. Rs.l,00,000/-made u/s.68 of the I.T. Act on account of excess amount shown as payable in the name of Shri. S.D. Shah. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made for the sale proceeds of gold Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uineness of the transaction. It was pleaded before the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has discharged the onus cast upon her by virtue of the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. It was also brought to the notice of the ld. CIT(A) that subsequently the assessee had sold the impugned 1300 Gms. Gold and the A.O. has accepted the Short Term Capital Gains offered by the assessee. It was vehemently claimed that the A.O. has taken two diversified views for the same set of transaction. 8. After considering the facts and the submissions and the relevant documentary evidences, the ld. CIT(A) was convinced with the genuineness of the credit entry of Rs. 11,84,124/- and deleted the addition. 9. In the statement of facts the revenue has repeated the observations of the A.O. There is no dispute that the purchase of gold ornaments was duly supported by purchase bills which was subsequently confirmed by M. Ruhi Exports. It is also not in dispute that subsequently the assessee had sold the gold so purchased. We fail to understand, when the A.O. has accepted the capital gains then he has also accepted the cost of purchase, then how can he treat the purchase amount as unexplained cash credit. Con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the facts and the submissions and the related documentary evidences, the ld. CIT(A) was convinced with the payments made by Shri Ankit C. Shah and Shri C.S. Shah (HUF) and deleted the additions of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 9,00,000/-. 16. In the statement of facts, the revenue has reiterated what has been stated by the A.O. in his assessment order. After carefully perusing the relevant documentary evidences field before us in the form of a paper book, we find that the amounts shown to have paid by Shri Ankit C. Shah and Shri C.S. Shah (HUF) are duly reflected in their respective pass book. It is also an undisputed fact that there was a typographical error in respect of the dates of payment. It is also true that Shri C.S. Shah (HUF) has paid the amount on three different dates although the A.O. tried to find out the payment of Rs. 9,00,050/- as a total figure. 17. Considering the conclusive evidences qua the facts in issue, we do not find any error or infirmity in the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Ground nos. 1 & 2 are accordingly dismissed. 18. Ground no. 4 relates to the deletion of the addition of Rs. 4.56 lacs. The A.O. found that the assessee has shown credit of Rs. 4,5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the return of income, the A.O. observed that the assessee has shown loan of Rs. 8,80,000/- received from father-in-law Mr. S.D. Shah. The A.O. found that Shri S.D. Shah has confirmed the loan of Rs. 7,80,000/-. The A.O. accordingly treated Rs. 1,00,000/- as unexplained and made the addition u/s. 68 of the Act. 26. Before the ld. CIT(A), it was explained that in his books, Shri S.D. Shah has opened two ledger accounts of the assessee. In one account balance was Rs. 7,80,000/- and in the other account Rs. 1,00,000/- was shown. After verifying the ledger accounts, the ld. CIT(A) was convinced that the difference of Rs. 1,00,000/- is duly explained and accordingly directed the A.O. to delete the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 27. After considering the statement of facts of the revenue qua the issue under consideration, we find that S.D. Shah was in fact having two ledger accounts of the assessee one was showing balance of Rs. 7,80,000/- and the other was showing balance of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The assessee was to explain the source of Rs. 8,80,000/- and considering these facts in totality, the source stands explained. We decline to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Ground....