Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 864 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained capital contribution by partners Held that:- Regarding this claim of gift, it is noted by CIT(A) that Smt. Leelawati Senani is not income-tax assessee and she is neither having any PAN and nor she could explain the source of giving gift to her daughter-in-law - the source of money in the hands of Smt. Sindhuja Mishra to this extent is not acceptable because nothing more is produced to warrant interference - assessee was also asked to furnish cash flow statement to show deposit in cash in her bank account but no compliance was made in this regard - the source for the capital contribution of Smt. Sindhuja Mishra with the assessee firm have not been found satisfactory and Smt. Sindhuja Mishra failed to prove it Relying upon Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Jaiswal Motor Finance [1983 (2) TMI 47 - ALLAHABAD High Court] - the source of fund in the hands of Smt. Sindhuja Mishra could not be explained, the order of CIT(A) is not sustainable Decided in favour of revenue. Money received did not match entries Held that:- The details filed by assessee during the appellate proceedings regarding money received from M/s IIHT Systems Ltd. and M/s Senani Colonizers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. do not find matching with the entries as found reflected with the sources of capital contribution of Smt. Sindhuja Mishra and Smt. Sindhuja Mishra has also not furnished any documentary evidence in respect of her deposit made in her bank there was no reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) Decided against Assessee. Gross profit increased Held that:- The assessee has not produced stock register along with details of cash purchases with name and address of the party and vouchers even though number of opportunities were given by the AO - In the absence of stock register and details of cash purchases etc. this small addition of ₹ 4,06,579/- is neither excessive nor unreasonable AO has made disallowance of 20% of the expenses debited to profit & loss account on the basis that no vouchers have been produced by the assessee in respect of these expenses - no any evidence has been produced, thus, there was no reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) Decided against assessee.
|