TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 309
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the value of tenancy rights of office premises on the basis of valuation as per stamp duty ready reckoner on assumptions and surmises without any evidence to prove that payment was actually made to the landlord and without appreciating the fact that the landlord had confirmed of not receiving any payment for granting the tenancy rights. (2) On the facts and in law and without prejudice to ground no. 1, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of full amount of Rs. 41,13,000 in the hands of appellant, on protective basis, without appreciating the fact that the tenancy rights were jointly acquired by three persons ie. Appellant, Kirtilal M Shah and Amarchand P Shah and only RT-1,000, being appellant's share can be asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. Thereafter, the statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee explained that the assessee did not purchase the immovable property but took Room No. 8 and 9 of 6th Floor of Phonix Building, S.V.P. Road, Mumbai alongwith two others on monthly rent of Rs. 940/-. An amount of Rs. 41,13,000/- was not the purchase consideration but market value of property taken for payment of stamp duty. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the investment of Rs. 41,13,000/-, therefore, the same was treated as unexplained u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961 hence added to the income of the assessee. The assessee also claimed the interest to the tune of Rs. 40,54,593/- an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It is also in dispute that an amount of Rs. 41,13,000/- was paid to acquire the tenancy right in the property mentioned above. The tenancy agreement is on the record which lies at Page No.22 to 43 of the paper book. The said agreement speaks about the fact that the assessee alongwith Kirtilal, M. Shah and Amarchand P Shah purchased the said property to the extent of 1/3 share each. The assessee failed to explain the source of the payment to the tune of Rs. 41,13,000/-. However, the share of the assessee was only to the extent of 1/3 in the said property. No evidence was produced before the AO as well as before the CIT(A) for explaining the source of payment of Rs. 41,13,000/-. Nothing has produced before us. The full addition to the amoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nnot be completely denied. Moreover, the contention of the appellant that he paid interest @6.50% only on ICICI Bank OD (as against @8% earned by him) is supported by the aforesaid letter of ICICI bank. The appellant has also earned iterest on other loans given to various parties. The aggregate interest received by the appellant from various investments exceeds the interest paid. Given all these facts on record, it would be difficult to justify the disallowance of interest paid on OD accounts in i) entirety, while taxing the interest earned on investments made out of these accounts. he appellant has shown investment in NSC/ KVP as on 31.03.2005 at Rs. 201.33 + 146.24 = Rs. 347.57 lakhs, which reconciles with aforesaid investments debited in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of interest paid to the extent of Rs. 37,20,593/- and from bank charges of Rs. 25,483/- in full. Therefore, the grounds No.3 & 4 of the appeal are partly allowed." 6. On appraisal of the above mentioned finding, we noticed that the figure of deposit and interest paid has duly discussed by CIT(A) in his order. Nothing distinguishable facts has been placed on record. Even, at the time of argument nothing was argued that which figure has wrongly being taken into consideration while declined the claim of the assessee regarding interest to the tune of Rs. 3,34,000/-. In view of the said circumstances we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the said addition hence, the order of the CIT(A) in this regard is not liable interfere ....