Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 126 - ITAT GUWAHATIAddition u/s 68 - unexplained unsecured loan - assessee has proved genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness upto two degree. It cannot be compelled to prove source of source upto second degree - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the assessment order would indicate that it is a managed show. In five days, one of the companies of the assessee where he is having major stake-holding and controlling the whole affairs of the company received share capital money from individuals and that money has been routed to the assessee between different layers. Therefore, AO was very much right in investigating the root source of such funds. It is not a genuine transaction but it is a staged transaction. CIT(Appeals) has erred in placing reliance upon the decision of Nemi Chand Kothari 2003 (9) TMI 62 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT The assessee might have been proved the identity but failed to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. He just routed the transaction in such a manner that adjudicating authority ought to be persuaded to believe in his made belief story. Therefore, in our opinion, the finding of the Ld. 1st Appellate Authority is not sustainable on this issue. We allow this ground of appeal and restore the finding of the Ld. Assessing Officer on this issue. The addition as unexplained cash credit is confirmed. Depreciation on the Cranes given on lease to Oil India Limited @ 30% disallowed - according to the Revenue, such assets were not used for hire and, therefore, are not entitled to claim higher rate of depreciation - HELD THAT:- AO was expecting from the assessee to demonstrate that these Cranes were used by M/s. Oil India for hire basis. He failed to appreciate that transaction is to be viewed in the hands of assessee. The moment assessee has let out for the user of a third party, which means those equipments were used for commercial purposes in the business of the assessee whether the third party is using them at their own or giving on further let out, it is not the criteria to determine the nature of income in the hands of the assessee. The moment assessee has let out the Cranes, then it is to be construed that these assets were being used in the hiring business of the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. 1st Appellate Authority has rightly appreciated the controversy in the finding extracted supra and we do not deem it necessary to interfere in this finding. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is rejected. Addition u/s 68 - CIT-A restricted part addition - 1st Appellate Authority has granted a partial relief after going through the audited accounts of the earlier year, wherein the assessee has debited a sum towards purchase of building material - HELD THAT:- No ground to interfere in it because the assessee has proved his case with the help of audited accounts coupled with circumstantial evidences. The land has already sold but material is not available on the ground that there is no way-out to prove that no such material was sold by the assessee. Once it is demonstrated that he has purchased the material in earlier year and debited in the regular books of account, then weightage to that effect ought to be given, which has been given by the Ld. 1st Appellate Authority on an estimate basis. Therefore, we do not wish to interfere in his discretion. This ground of appeal is rejected.
|