2019 (7) TMI 1029

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dated order. ITA No. 401/VIZ/2018 2. Ground Nos. 1, 3 & 5 to 10 are not pressed by the assessee's counsel, therefore same are dismissed. The remaining grounds pressed are only ground Nos. 2 & 4 which are as follows:- "2) The ld. CIT(A) should have allowed the addition made on account of the differences in bank balances as per books and as per bank statements. 4) The ld. CIT(A) should have allowed the interest claim of Rs. 1,16,086/-." 3. Facts of the case in brief are that assessee is an individual engaged in jewellery business in the name and style of 'Varalakshmi Jewellery Mart' apart from pawn broking. For the year under consideration, assessee filed her return of income declaring income of Rs. 2,64,800/- besides agricultural inco....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f accounting is mercantile. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has asked the assessee to explain why the interest accrued on pawn broking business was not disclosed in the return of income on mercantile basis. In response, the assessee has filed a reply dated 28/03/2016 and stated that "my business in pawn broking is done on cash basis. The receipt of interest on pawn broking capital is accounted as and when received. In my earlier letter, the method of accounting was stated as mercantile basis inadvertently". By considering the above explanation, the Assessing Officer has noted that assessee has followed cash basis method of accounting. However, in the profit & loss account, she has claimed interest expenditure to the tune of Rs. 1,16,086/- ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Assessing Officer. We find that the submissions of the assessee that the interest paid belonging to the jewellery business is only an afterthought for the reason that the assessee has not placed any material before us to show that it relates to jewellery business. We are of the opinion that no interfere is warranted in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, this ground of appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. ITA No.402/VIZ/2018 8. The ground Nos. 1, 3 & 5 to 10 are not pressed by the ld.counsel for the assessee, therefore same are dismissed. The only grounds pressed by the assessee's counsel are ground No..2 & 4 which are as under:- "2) The ld. CIT(A) should have allowed the addition made of Rs. 4,64,000/- by treating the g....