TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 1178
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the income based on the final books of account thereby confirming the manner of determination of income by the Assessing Officer. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have accepted the book results shown by the appellant. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that no income from the attached assets can be taxed in the hands of the appellant. 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the enhancement of income, in principle, as proposed by the Assessing Officer which is illegal, invalid and beyond jurisdiction. 5. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the disallowance of deduction on account of interest expenditure claimed by the appellant. 6. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234A and 234B pf the Act." 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that he is not pressing ground No. 3. The same is accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 4. Ground No. 1 is general in nature, hence need no separate adjudication. 5. Grou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It was found that in the books of late Shri Harshad S. Mehta, the assesse's ledger accounts shows a debit balance of Rs. 7,81,46,140/- whereas in the case of assesse's ledger account shows a credit balance of Rs. 7,47,55,547/-. Thus there was a difference of Rs. 33,90,593/- which the A.O. required the ld. CIT(A) to add to the total income of the assessee. The assessee was asked to explain. The assessee filed a detailed reply strongly objecting to the proposed enhancement. It was claimed that the proposed enhancement was entirely on presumption not supported by any evidence. The transactions are very much reflected in the books of account of both the parties. It was further stated that the A.O. himself has admitted that the assessee has shown the transactions in her books of account whereas late Shri Harshad S. Mehta has not shown such transactions. Under these circumstances, the additions cannot be made in the hands of the assessee. It was further stated that the difference in the accounts is because there was a difference in the opening balance which is on account of interest payable by the assessee to Late Shri Harshad S. Mehta. The assessee has also filed the copies of the ledg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3,90,593/- leaving a megre sum of Rs. 20/-. Further, we find that Late Shri Harshad S. Mehta has to receive more amount from the assessee therefore the difference cannot be treated as income of the assessee. It is not a case where the assessee is showing more amounts to be received from Late Shri Harshad S. Mehta. Further, it is an undisputed fact that the difference is only in respect of opening balances and with a difference of Rs. 31072/- pertaining to the year under consideration. We, therefore, restore this issue to the file of the A.O. for the limited purpose of verification of reconciliation of the difference between the opening balances and the closing balances relating to brokerage and lease rent. The assessee is directed to file necessary details. The A.O. is directed to verify the details and decide this limited issue. Ground No. 4 is accordingly partly allowed for statistical purpose. 11. Ground No. 5 relates to the disallowance of deduction on account of interest expenditure. 12. The ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that this issue has been decided by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 1991-92 in ITA No. 1181/Mum/2012. 13. We have carefully perused the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he closing stock of the assessee was determined for the year under consideration and on comparing the opening stock and closing stock, whenever there was a difference where opening stock was higher than the closing stock, it was treated as sale and wherever the closing stock was higher than the opening stock, the difference was treated as unexplained purchase. The purchases were determined at Rs. 8,85,75,861/- and the sales were determined at Rs. 15,55,67,482/-. The profit on sale of shares was determined at Rs. 3,31,20,180/-. The A.O. added this amount. Before the ld. CIT(A), it was contended that the information relied upon by the A.O. were either given to the assessee during the proceedings of A.Y. 1992-93 or during the proceedings for A.Y. 1993-94. It was further contended that the A.O. has computed the holding of shares from the information collected from difference sources. It was further submitted that the working of opening stock is borrowed from the working given in A.Y. 1992-93 without any break-up and without any basis. After considering the facts and the submissions, the ld. CIT(A) at para 9.7 of his order observed that the A.O. did not gave any breakup and the basis as....