2020 (5) TMI 229

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rs. 4,826/-. The Assessing Officer framed assessment and made additions and the ld. CIT(A) also partly confirmed the additions, against which the assessee is before this Tribunal. 3. Through first ground, the assessee has challenged the confirmation of the addition of Rs. 1,11,203/- on account of credits in bank account. The Assessing Officer made additions holding that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof by not establishing the genuineness of credits in the bank account. However, ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 50,000/- considering the past savings. Therefore, remaining addition of Rs. 1,11,203/- has been challenged by the assessee before this Tribunal. 4. Before me, learned counsel for the assessee submitted tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... clearing of cheque no.143176 and IDBI Infrastructure Bonds purchased by the assessee in earlier years have not been considered by the ld. CIT(A), which is not justified because the assessee has explained the nature of credit entries. Therefore, I direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition on account of cash credits in bank account. Accordingly, ground no.1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 6. So far as ground no.2 with regard to addition of Rs. 1,97,545/- on account of interest on FDR is concerned, the Assessing Officer noted that the entries of Rs. 2,12,600/-, 82,432/- , 83,209/- 1,26,316/-, 1,25,387/-, 1,26,051/- made on 01.9.04, 27.11.04, 27.11.04, 28.1.05, 28.1.05, 03.2.05 relate to maturity value of FDRs made in earlier yea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd receiving fees from private practice. 10. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that on presumption, this addition has been sustained by the ld. CIT(A) as no evidence has been brought on record regarding private practice done by assessee. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 11. On consideration of above facts, I find that ld. CIT(A) noted in the order that the assessee is a Surgeon and receiving fees from private practice. However, perusal of assessment order and impugned orders shows that no corroborative evidence was brought on record by the Revenue Authorities in this regard. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) on presumptive basis sustained the addition, which is not justified. Thus, I direct the....