Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 165 - ITAT LUCKNOWAddition u/s 40A (3) - CIT(A) deleted addition on the ground that payments of ₹ 132,000/- made on 21.03.2010 and ₹ 167,620/- on 28.03.2010 fall on Sundays and banks were closed which was one of the exceptions provided in Rule 6DD(j) - Held that:- We find that learned CIT (A) has allowed relief only in respect of two payments which were made on Sundays and he has confirmed the balance disallowances u/s 40A (3). We also find that it is noted by the A.O. in the assessment order that these are cash purchases. Therefore, there is no requirement to find out the due date of the bill. This is not the case of the A.O. that these two dates are not on Sunday. Considering all these facts, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT (A) on this issue - Decided against revenue. Unaccounted cash credit - unaccounted deposits in saving bank account of HDFC Bank - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that:- A clear finding is given by CIT (A) that the balance sheet was prepared for business affairs and this bank account was a personal account. It is not shown by the revenue that any business transaction was carried out through this bank account and hence, we find no merit in the objection of the A.O that the HDFC Bank Account is not incorporated in Balance Sheet. Even if the assessee fails to establish the purpose for which the loan was stated to have been taken by the assessee, it cannot be said that for this reason alone, the loan is bogus and addition is called for. There is no merit in any of the objections of the A.O. The assessee has filed affidavits of all 98 persons and the A.O. called 10 person out of them and 9 appeared and confirmed. Hence, in our considered opinion, in the facts of the present case, there is infirmity in the order of CIT (A) on this issue - Decided against revenue. Unaccounted investment - addition u/s 69B deleted by CIT(A) - Held that:- CIT (A) has decided this issue on this basis that this difference is with regard to payment of stamp paper purchased in cash and it was explained before CIT (A) that this payment was made out of cash available in personal capacity. Learned CIT (A) held that in the facts of the present case, it is reasonable to accept that the assessee may be having some cash as personal savings and he accepted this claim to the extent of ₹ 80,000/-. In our considered opinion, the amount of personal cash accepted by CIT (A) is not excessive and hence, we hold that there is no infirmity in the order of CIT (A) on this issue. - Decided against revenue.
|