DR. RAJENDRA NARYANRAO UMBARKAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 11(3), MUMBAI

2 & ITA No.4394/13 2. Albeit the grounds raised by revenue and assessee are different to each other, however the order impugned under challenge is common, therefore, for the sake of convenience, both the appeals are heard and disposed off by this consolidated order.

We have heard the parties at length and perused the record carefully. In regard to ground raised by the revenue that ALV of house property at Parel Sewree should not be taken at Nil, we found from the order of CIT(A) that the assessee is staying in the flat No.1108, Sky Flama Parel Sewree, Mumbai, which is a self occupied property. The CIT(A) confirmed the restriction of deduction for interest at Rs.1.5 lacs, however, directed the AO to delete the estimation of ALV at Rs.6,15,958/- since it is self occupied property. We, thus, are of the opinion that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the same and our interference is not required in the findings of the CIT(A) in this regard. So far as the ground raised by the revenue with regard to deletion of addition of Rs.2,29,569/- is concerned, the CIT(A) held that the professional fees of Rs.2,29,659/- received by the assessee from the six hospitals forms the part and parcel of the gross receipts declared by the assessee. Therefore, we do not see any reason 4 & ITA No.4394/13 to interfere in the findings of the CIT(A) in this regard. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the revenue.

Now, coming to the appeal of assessee i.e. In the- facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming addition made by the A. O. of Rs. 8,60,371/- as undisclosed credit in the Bank Account by applying the provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961. (2) Reasons given by the CIT(A) for confirming addition made by the A. O. of Rs. 8,60,371/- as undisclosed credit in the Bank Account by applying the provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 are wrong insufficient and contrary to the facts and evidence on record (3) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming addition made by the A. O. in respect of professional fees paid of Rs. 16,000/- by applying the provisions of section 40(a)(i)(a) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (4) Reasons given by the CIT(A) for confirming addition made by the A. O. in respect of professional fees paid of Rs. 16,000/- by applying the provisions of section 40(a)(i)(a) of the Income Tax Act 1961.

We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the record carefully. Ld. AR did not press grounds No.3 & 4, therefore, the same are dismissed as not pressed. However, the ground remains for adjudication before us is addition of Rs.8,60,371/- made u/s.68 of the Act on account of undisclosed credit in the bank account and confirmed by the CIT(A), is just and proper.

Ld. AR submitted that the fixed deposits amounting to Rs.8,60,371/- were matured on 11/1/2007 and the said maturity proceeds deposited in S.B. Account of the assessee with ICICI Bank. The said maturity proceeds 5 & ITA No.4394/13 were credited to the Saving Bank account, there is no appreciation or excess credit in the assessee's capital account. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer deserves to be deleted. Further, the source of said Rs.8,60,371/- is the maturity proceeds of the Fixed Deposits and the said Fixed Deposits pertain to earlier year, provisions of section 68 are not applicable to the said Rs. 8,60,371/-. It is further submitted that there is no increase in the capital or there is no excess credit of Rs. 8,60,371/- to the capital account. Therefore, on both the counts addition made of Rs. 8,60,371/- requires to be deleted.

Ld. DR relied on the orders of tax authorities.

We have gone through the material evidence available on record and perused them carefully. We found that the CIT(A) held that the assessee could not prove the source of deposits of Rs.8,60,371/- made in ICICI Bank on 1-11-2007. However, ld. AR before us submitted that fixed deposits amounting to Rs.8,60,371/- were matured on 11/1/2007 and the said maturity proceeds deposited in S.B. Account of the assessee with ICICI Bank. Be that as it may, in our considered opinion, the assessee is required to prove its genuineness of the same before the AO. Accordingly, we restore this issue to the file of AO and the AO after verification of the documents to be produced by the assessee shall pass order in accordance with law, after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We order accordingly.