DR. GANESH K KINI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 11(3)(2), MUMBAI

In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved for the addition made in respect of amount deposited in bank account and also for disallowance of 10% of motor car and telephone expenses.

Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a doctor practising as Neurology Consultant. During the year assessee had shown income from business/profession and income from other sources. During the course of scrutiny assessment, the AO found that assessee has deposited cash in the joint account with Dhanlakshmi Bank Ltd., Chembur. The AO enquired relevant 2 source of deposit in the bank. It was explained that the deposit in the bank was out of realisation of investment held by his father. Ld. AR also placed on record details of investment and source of income of the father of assessee. As per the statement opening balance as on 1-4-2007 in respect of such maturity value of FD, redemption of Bonds, interest on MIS, redemption of mutual fund, FD interest and dividend etc. amounted to Rs.34,18,242/-, out of which withdrawal during the year was Rs.32,74,985/-. Accordingly, it was explained that amount deposited in the bank was out of the realisation of maturity on FDR, interest redemption of bonds, savings bank interest and redemption on mutual fund etc, which was held by his father. However, the AO did not agree with the assessee’s contention on the plea that in the joint account name of father was added only subsequently, therefore, realisation out of these investments were not accepted in the hands of the assessee. We do not find any merit in the action of lower authorities, insofar as all these investments were already held by the father of the assessee who has also appeared before the AO and recorded his statement. The assessee has also filed letter dated 13-12-2010, copy of income tax return, copy of acknowledgement of filing of return and affidavit from his father treating that the account belongs to him and the same is reflected in the income tax return. From the record we found that father of the assessee also appeared before the AO whose statement was recorded and relevant question regarding holding of investment and deposit in the bank account 3 was confirmed. Accordingly, we do not find any merit for the addition so made by the AO in the hands of assessee.

The assessee has also challenged disallowance of 10% of expenses on motor car and telephone expenses.

It was argued by ld. AR that assessee is a doctor and the expenditure were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of his profession.

We have considered rival contentions, and the fact of personal element in such expenses cannot be ruled out. Accordingly, we confirm the disallowance so made.

In the result, ground no.1&2 are dismissed and ground No.3 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 11/05/ 2016. Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY GARG) (R.C.SHARMA) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनांक Dated 11/05/2016 प्र.कु.मभ/pkm, नन.स/ PS आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीराथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. 2. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A), Mumbai. 3. आमकय आमुक्त / CIT 4. ववबागीम प्रनतननधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ा पाईर / Guard file. 6. आदेशाि सार/ BY ORDER, सत्मावऩत प्रनत //True Copy//