Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 533 - ITAT DELHIAddition on low and unexplained House Hold exp. - Held that:- From the reply of Sh. Vijender Mann it is evident that he was giving answers in present tense and, therefore, we find considerable force in the submission of ld. counsel for the assessee that the statement refers to the position as obtaining on 23-9-2009 when admittedly the children were not college going. However in AY 2006- 07 the children were school going as is evident from the certificate filed in the PB. These certificates are photo copies only and were not furnished before the AO and were filed for the first time before the ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) has not considered these certificates. Therefore, the authenticity of these certificates needs to be examined at the AO level. These certificates clearly negate the very basis for making addition of ₹ 3,09,000/- which was primarily made on the basis of house-hold expenses being ₹ 10,000/- per month and children education at ₹ 2 lacs. Further, keeping in view the extensive agricultural activities carried out by assessee’s husband, his statement that he had sold buffalo and tuda for more than ₹ 1 lacs cannot be doubted particularly when at the time of taking the statement the AO did not ask for the same assessee should be allowed further credit of ₹ 1 lakk from the addition made for house hold expenses over and above the credit to be allowed in respect of educational expenses, which were only ₹ 33,830/- (Rs. 17,515/- + 16,315/-) and not ₹ 2 lakhs subject to verification of the certificates from D.A.V. School (supra). The matter is restored to the file of AO for verification of the certificates from DAV school contained at pages 22 & 23 of the PB. - Decided partly in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Addition on interest - Held that:- Bare perusal of the noted explanation makes it evident that Sh. Vijender Mann and assessee had current account and the entire agricultural produce was sold through assessee on which assessee got commission.In respect of other advances also there were business dealings with the parties and, therefore, amounts were lying in different accounts on account of commercial expediency. Hence, no addition was called for on account of debit balances lying with customers on notional basis for not charging interest on their account. We may further observe that there is no finding recorded by lower revenue authorities as to whether the advances lying with customers were out of borrowed funds or out of own funds. Therefore, we are of the opinion that lower revenue authorities were not justified in making addition on this count. We, therefore, delete the addition in question.- Decided partly in favour of assessee. Disallowance of shortage of paddy - Held that:- Loss on account of drying of paddy cannot be denied merely because in earlier year assessee had not claimed the same. It is a natural phenomenon and, therefore, on account of drying of paddy loss in weight is bound to occur. We are in agreement with ld. CIT(A) that as far as the opening balance is concerned, no loss on this count can be allowed because, if there was any such loss, it should have been claimed in earlier year. However, in respect of purchase of paddy during the year, we are of the opinion that it would meet the ends of justice if 5% loss on the purchase of paddy during the year is allowed on account of moisture less of the paddy. In the result - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|