AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 147
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....11.2014 for the year under consideration declaring total income at Rs. 93,27,510/-. The assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was finalized on 13.12.2016 determining total income at Rs. 1,14,48,386/- upon making additions inter alia Rs. 13,69,371/- as credits to capital account shown as gift from appellant's aunt as unexplained credits to capital account, Rs. 6,67,492/- on account of income from house property etc., the same was further confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. Hence, the instant appeal before us. 4. During the course of assessment proceeding, it was found that capital of Rs. 13,69,371/- was brought in the capital account during the year under consideration. The assessee was asked to explain the same with documentary evidences whereupon it was submitted by the assessee that the assessee is holding a joint FDRs along with his aunt Smt. Sushilaben Patel and the said amount was received after her death. In support of the contention made by the assessee, the assessee submitted FDRs. Certain documents being the certificate of death of aunt, source of principal amount of FD recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee as the FDRs were made in the joint na....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 06.07.2020 received from your kind office. During the appellate proceedings, the assesses has submitted the additional evidences on the following issues, the point wise reply is as under:- (i) Addition on account of Capital Introduction :- During the assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO has made the addition on account of capital introduction on the following grounds :- (i) The relationship of the assessee with the Aunt has not been proved as per section 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (ii) The source of the FDRs has not been explained by the assessee. (iii) Further, the signature of legal heirs were different in gift deed and passport. As the assessee has claimed exemption u/s. 56 of the Act regarding amount received of FDRs but the the blood relationship with Sml. Sushilaben Patel has been proved in view of the definition of relation under the Income Tax Act which is reproduced as under:- "relative" means :- (i) In case of an individual (a) Spouse of the individual. (b) Brother or sister of the spouse of the individual. (c) Brother or sister of the spouse of the individual. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... maturity value of FDR's. In this connection it is respectfully submitted that since the appellant had not made the FD's the same was not recorded in his books of account. This point was mentioned to AO in the course of assessment. As regards to the observation of the AO as mentioned above in para c it is submitted that if an individual wants to give any amount to any person the legal heirs cannot object to the same. However the eldest son Ashokbhai has confirmed that his mother had mentioned the name of appellant as joint holder, as he was looking after her in India. In view of the fact that Shushilaben was aunt of the appellant and as per section 56(2)(vil). amount received without consideration from relative is exempt. As regards the signature of Ashok Patel, it is submitted that a person can have different signatures for different purposes and hence the same cannot be a ground of making disallowance. In view of the above narrated facts the addition made is not justified and hence the same may kindly be deleted. " 7. Finally, the contention made by the assessee was not found to be acceptable to this effect that the source o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the aforesaid four houses. He further estimated fair rent @15% of total investment amounting to Rs. 9,53,560/-. He allowed deduction @ 30% and assessed income from house property at Rs. 6,67,492/-. It was the case of the assessee that none of those houses was actually let out during the year under consideration and if properties are considered to be deemed to let out, then vacancy allowance should be allowed, which will render house property income as Nil. Before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee filed written submission with the following details: "The appellant is a neurologist and is practicing in Balasinor and Baroda. He has a MRI centre under the name of Makarpura Diagnostic Centre, at Makarpura Baroda. In the Balance Sheet of the appellant the following four houses have been shown under the head Investments; 1. Residential House- Rs. 5,95,000/- This house is staff quarter for MRI staff at Baroda. 2. Flat at Baroda - Rs. 88,75,000/- This flat was purchased for his personal stay at Baroda when he used to run OPD at Baroda. The AO has considered this as Self Occupied Property, and hence no addition on account of no....