2019 (4) TMI 1019

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 143(3) / 144 of the Act and order dated 28.11.2014 in ITA No.25/10-11 for the assessment year 2007-08 passed U/s.250(6) r.w.s. 271F of the Act. 2.1 The assessee has raised the following identical ground with respect to the same facts in all the appeals for the relevant assessment years:- The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition made by the Ld.AO towards accrued interest on the investment made by the assessee as detailed herein below:- Particulars AY 2005-06 ITA No.217/Chny/2015 AY 2006-07 ITA 218/Chny/2015 AY 2007-08 ITA 219/Chny/2015 Deposits of Rs. 3,03,125/- in RD account @ 9% Rs.27,281 Rs.27,281 Rs.27,281 Advance made towards promissory notes aggregating to Rs. 11,45,000 @ 24% Rs.2,74,800 Rs.2,74,800 Rs.2,74,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the assessee for the assessment year 2007-08 and penalty was levied for non-filing of return of income. 4. Ground No.2.1 : Addition towards accrued interest:- For the assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-08, assessment was completed U/s.143(3) / 144 of the Act wherein the Ld.AO made addition by estimating the interest income on the unaccounted bank deposits @ 9% and advance made to private parties @ 24% as detailed herein below:- " Interest accrued from deposits in RD (9% of Rs. 3,03,125) Rs. 27,281/- Interest accrued from promissory notes (24% of 11,45,000) Rs.2,74,800/- Interest accrued from money advanced to BMB   Promoters (24% of Rs. 1,50,000) Rs. 36,000/- Total Rs.3,38,081/- 4.1 On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) had confirmed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2007-08, the Ld.AO was of the view that since the assessee had filed its return of income on 02.06.2009, which is beyond the time limit it is invalid and non-erst. Hence rejecting the return filed by the assessee, the Ld.AO estimated the business income of the assessee as Rs. 3,00,000/- and accordingly passed orders U/s.144 of the Act. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Ld.AO. 5.1 At the outset, we find that the assessee has filed the return of income though not within due date but belatedly. The Ld.AO has simply rejected the return filed by the assessee treating it to be non-erst. However we are of the view that though the Ld.AO had rejected the return of income filed by the assessee, it would have been appropriate on hi....