Latest Expert Exchange Queries

GST Demo Service software link: https://ims.go2customer.com
Username: demouser Password: demopass
Get your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft info@binarysoft.com
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: TDS :: due date for vat payment :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: empanelment :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: form 3cd :: VAT RATES :: cpt :: VAT Audit :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4%
 
 
From the Courts »
  SRD Nutrients Private Limited vs. CCE (Supreme Court)
 Samvardhana Motherson International Ltd. (Formerly Known As(M/s Samvardhana Motherson Finance Ltd.)a Vs. Assitant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 22(1) & Anr.
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2 Vs. M/s Frontline Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
 Ram Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-64(2) & Anr.
 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 Vs. St Microelectronics Private Ltd.
  The Chamber Of Tax Consultants vs. UOI (Delhi High Court)
 M/s Ess Distribution (Mauritius) S.N.C.Et Compagnie Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -1(2)(2) International Taxation, New Delhi
 Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ltu) Vs. ESPN Software India Ltd.
 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,
 ITO vs. Gymkhana Club (ITAT Chandigarh)
 SRD Nutrients Private Limited vs. CCE (Supreme Court)

Income Tax Officer, Ward-42(2), New Delhi Vs. Km. Gayatri Sekhar, Room No. 109, Aakash Officers, Mess, Zakir Hussain Marg, New Delhi
March, 30th 2015
             IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                   DELHI BENCH: `C' : NEW DELHI

          BEFORE SH. R.S. SYAL, A.M. & SH. I.C. SUDHIR, J.M.

                            ITA No. 4528/Del/2013
                           Assessment Year: 2009-10

Income Tax Officer,              Vs.           Km. Gayatri Sekhar,
Ward-42(2), New Delhi                          Room No. 109, Aakash Officers,
                                               Mess, Zakir Hussain Marg,
                                               New Delhi
                                               (PAN:AYCPS1237P)
     (Appellant)                                     (Respondent)

     Appellant by : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
     Respondent by: Sh. S. Sampath
                                       Date of hearing: 27.03.2015
                                       Date of pronouncement: 27.03.2015

                                       ORDER

PER R.S. SYAL,A.M.:

       This appeal by the Revenue arises out of the order of the CIT(A) dated

31.05.2013 in relation to the assessment year 2009-10.

2.     The solitary ground raised in this appeal is against the deletion of addition

of Rs. 62 lakh on account of cash deposited in ICICI bank and Rs. 80,322/- on

account of interest income.

3.     Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is an employee of

Indian Air Force. A sum of Rs. 62 lakh was deposited in her bank account

maintained with ICICI bank on 29.08.2008. On being called upon to explain the

source of deposit of such amount in her bank account, she stated that her parents
                                         2







were residing outside India during the relevant financial year. The property

jointly held by them was sold by her during the year on the basis of Power of

attorney and the sale proceeds were deposited in her bank account in cash. In

support of her claim, she filed copy of the returns filed by her parents for the

assessment year under consideration. The returns filed by the parents revealed

that they had declared sale consideration at Rs. 31 lakh each as the full value of

consideration in the computation of income under the head `Capital gains'. Not

convinced, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 62 lakh in the hands of

the assessee. Apart from that, he also made an addition of Rs. 80,322/- towards

the interest income earned from bank, which was not declared. The learned

CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 62 lakh against which the Revenue has come

up in the appeal before us.

4.    We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material

available on record. It is observed that the assessee duly stated the source of

deposit of Rs. 62 lakh in her bank account, being the sale proceeds of the

property held by her parents. Not only that, she also furnished copy of their

returns of income declaring sale consideration at Rs. 31 lakh each. The mere fact

that registered value of property was stated to be at Rs. 9,80,000/-, cannot be a

criteria to reject the assessee's contention of the actual sale consideration at Rs.

62 lakh, more so, when the same sale consideration was duly declared by her

parents in their respective returns of income. In our considered opinion, the
                                         3




assessee fully discharged the onus cast upon her to give the source of deposit of

Rs. 62 lakh in her bank account. The addition, if any, could have been

considered in the hands of the buyer showing lower purchase consideration. The

assessee cannot be saddled with any further liability. The impugned order is,

therefore, upheld to this extent.
5. As regards the other part of the ground about the deletion of addition of Rs. 80,322/- on account of interest income, we find that there is no decision given by the learned CIT(A) sustaining or deleting this addition. This part of the ground, therefore, cannot be said to arise from the impugned order. The same is therefore, dismissed as infructuous. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The decision is pronounced in the open court on 27th March, 2015. Sd/- Sd/- (I.C. Sudhir) (R.S. Syal) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 27th March, 2015. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2017 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Our Vision

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions