TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty brokerage business to the tune of ₹ 15 Lac and in absence of books of accounts and other details in support of incurrence of various expenses so claimed, the expenses remain unverifiable Unexplained cash deposits - Held that:- Matter relating to verification of source of cash deposits in the assessee’s bank account is accordingly set-aside to the file of the AO to examine the same afresh taking into consideration the contention so raised by the ld AR before us and after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Income earned from petrol pump - Held that:- AR has contended that the assessee purchased the land at Village Sawar, Kekri on which he incurred expenditure of ₹ 20,000/- which is duly reflected in statement of affairs as on 31.03.2006. Since there is no finding of the lower authorities, the matter is set aside to the file of the AO to examine the said contention of the ld AR and decide afresh as per law. In the result, ground is allowed for statistical purposes. Disallowance of depreciation - AR has contended that necessary details in support of claim of depreciation has already been filed with the lower authorities - Held that:- Since there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred by confirming the addition of ₹ 3,38,000/- against payment made to purchase the car. 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred by making the addition of ₹ 4,76,000/- on account of payment of EMI towards the loan. 8. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred by confirming the addition of ₹ 1,58,500/- as unexplained cash deposit into bank. 2. Ground No.1 of the appeal is not pressed by the assessee, therefore, the same stands dismissed as not pressed. 3. Ground No. 2 of the assessee s appeal is against confirming the addition of ₹ 82,456/- as income from other sources. The brief facts on this ground is that in the return, assessee has declared agricultural income of ₹ 82,456/-. However, the AO treated it as business income for the reason that no documentary evidence as to the cultivation of land and sale of agricultural produce was furnished. 4. The ld. CIT(A) has upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by holding as under: The appellant has not filed any document before the AO in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are of the view that the primary onus is on the assessee to demonstrate through verifiable evidence in support of the agriculture income so claimed in the return of income. However, in view of conflicting claims by both the parties and in absence of a specific finding in support of no income from the agriculture produce from the land so co-owned by the assessee, we deem it fit to restore the matter to the file of the AO to examine the same afresh in light of evidence so produced by the assesee and where so required, to carry out independent verification. In the result, the ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. Ground No. 3 of the assessee s appeal is against confirming the estimate income from business of ₹ 5,00,000/- and ground No. 8 of the appeal is against confirming the addition of ₹ 14,58,500/- as unexplained cash deposit into bank. 9. The brief facts regarding these issues are that AO observed that in the show cause notice dated 03.03.2014, assessee was informed for estimating the business income at ₹ 15 lacs but assessee has not responded to it. He therefore, made an addition of ₹ 15 lacs as concealed business income. The AO further hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct that the AO has estimated the business income of the appellant without any basis and it was based solely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. However, it is also a fact that the appellant has not produced its books of accounts and bills/vouchers before the AO. Even during the appellate proceedings, the appellant failed to file the details of such expenses. Therefore, in view of the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I think it would be appropriate to estimate the business income of the appellant at ₹ 5 Lac. Thus, the appellant would get a relief of ₹ 10 Lac on this ground of appeal. ( v) Regarding the cash deposit of ₹ 14,58,500/- in its bank account, the assertion of the appellant that these were made out of the brokerage received from the farmers is without any basis as not even a single documentary evidence was filed by the appellant to support such assertion. It is trite law that onus is upon the appellant to explain the source of cash deposits in its bank account and since in the instant case under consideration, the appellant has failed miserably to explain the source of cash deposit of ₹ 14,58,500/- in its saving bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om property brokerage business to the tune of ₹ 15 Lac and in absence of books of accounts and other details in support of incurrence of various expenses so claimed, the expenses remain unverifiable: ( iv) I have duly considered the assessment order, submissions of the appellant and the material placed on record. It was admitted by the appellant that its receipts from property brokerage business was to the tune of ₹ 15 Lac and it was submitted by it that after meeting various expenses, its income from business was to the tune of ₹ 60,230/-. It is matter of fact that the AO has estimated the business income of the appellant without any basis and it was based solely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. However, it is also a fact that the appellant has not produced its books of accounts and bills/vouchers before the AO. Even during the appellate proceedings, the appellant failed to file the details of such expenses. Therefore, in view of the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I think it would be appropriate to estimate the business income of the appellant at ₹ 5 Lac. Thus, the appellant would get a relief of ₹ 10 Lac on this g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 20,000/- which is duly reflected in statement of affairs as on 31.03.2006. Since there is no finding of the lower authorities, the matter is set aside to the file of the AO to examine the said contention of the ld AR and decide afresh as per law. In the result, ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 19. In the ground No. 5 of the appeal, the issue involved is confirming the disallowance of depreciation amounting to ₹ 1,67,346/-. The facts regarding this issue are that the assessee has income from business apart from salary and agricultural income. In the computation of total income it has claimed depreciation of ₹ 1,67,346/- (PB 11). The AO disallowed the claim for the reason that assessee has not submitted P L A/c and the proof of purchase of vehicle on which depreciation is claimed. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance by stating that assessee has not filed the depreciation chart and it appears that he is not serious about this ground of appeal. 20. While pleading on behalf of the assessee, the ld AR has submitted that before the Ld. CIT(A) it was explained that the assessee has purchased Tavera car for ₹ 9,88,000/- for which copy of RC w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed a Tavera Car for a consideration of ₹ 9,88,000/- but the appellant has not produced source of such investment and consequently, the AO has made addition of ₹ 9,88,000/- u/s 69C of the Act. During appellate proceedings, it was submitted by the appellant that it has taken a loan of ₹ 5.50 Lac from the HDFC bank and the balance amount of ₹ 3.38 Lac was available with it out of past savings. The appellant has also filed a copy of loan account statement of HDFC bank. ( ii) I have duly considered the submissions of the appellant, assessment order and the material placed on record. The loan account of HDFC bank show EMI payment of ₹ 46,500/- through cheque. However, the appellant has not filed the copy of that bank account in which these cheques were debited. The loan repayment was started in June, 2005 i.e. for 10 months in the year under consideration. Thus, the source of total EMI payment of ₹ 4,65,000/- remained unexplained. The appellant has not provided the complete loan statement and it appears that the bank has charged certain amounts on account of dishonor of cheques issued by the appellant for EMI and the total of such amounts is est ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
