TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. By the impugned order, ld Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) deleted the addition after having the following observation: The additional evidences adduced by the Ld. AR were referred to the A.O. vide letter dated 23/03/2010 for his comments. The A.O., in his report dated 26/10/2010, has informed that the credit relates to financial year 2002-03 relevant to Asstt. Year 2003-04. Since the appellant has already offered the same as income for Asstt. Year 2008-09, no addition may be called for in the assessment year under consideration. After careful consideration of submission made by the Ld. AR as well as the report of the A.O., I find that the alleged difference in cash credit account of Bank Of Baroda is due to credit of refund received from Department of Excise on 03/12/2002 and since the credit has already been offered for taxation in the previous year relevant to the Asst. Yr. 2008-09, no more addition on this count to the returned income of the year under consideration is sustainable and hence, it is deleted. 3. We have considered the rival contentions and found that addition was made on account of difference in cash credit account maintained with Bank of Baroda. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner of Income tax (Appeals) for deleting the addition after calling considering the remand report.. 6. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee has deducted tax at source on payment of advertisement charges to Hitkari and Dainik Bhaskar u/s 194C, but the same has not been deposited into credit of Govt. account in time. In one occasion, TDS was not deducted. For such failure, he invoked provision u/s 40(a)(ia) and disallowed the entire amount of Rs.60,574/-. By the impugned order, ld Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) restricted the addition to Rs.28,714/- after having the following observation: The submission of the Ld. AR was referred to the AO for his comment. The AO reported that there was no deduction of tax at source on payment of Rs. 28,7147-made to Dainik Bhaskar, though TDS has been made and credited to the Central Govt. account on 26/04/2005 on payment of Rs. 28,860/-. Similarly, tax has been deducted but deposited on 26/04/2005 only on payment of Rs.3,000/- made to Hitkari Media. Further he commented that even in view of amended provisions with retrospective effect, the entire sum of Rs. 60,574/- has been rightly disallowed as per provision u/s 40( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d discount a/c (Waidhan Branch) that a sum of Rs.3,42,780/- has been paid in cash in excess of Rs. 20,000/- in clear violation of section 40A(3) of IT Act, therefore a sum of Rs.68,556/-was disallowed .added to the returned income. By the impugned order, ld Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) confirmed the disallowance by observing as under: The AO reported that the assessee, in his written submission dated 7/12/2007 furnished the details of cash payment in excess of Rs. 20,000/- . He has made payment of Rs.3,17,780/-(12 payments) as Free insurance RTO Scheme(Shahdol Branch) and Rs.25,000/- as Discount a/c (Waidhan Branch) totaling to Rs.3,42,780/- in cash in contravention to the provision u/s 40A(3) of the Act. The disallowance at the rate of 20% of the expenses made in cash comes to Rs.68,556/-. He further commented that the assessee has not given any plausible explanation or evidence to prove that the payments were made to Govt. account and was covered under Rule 6DD(j) of the IT Rules. Since the cash expenditure in excess of Rs.20,000/- is not being supported with any evidence to establish that it is covered under Rule 6DD(j), the disallowance made by the AO is just ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... next following previous year are considered this year, then there would not be any addition on this score. On careful consideration of the submission made by the Ld. AR and the report of the A.O. I find the ground of appeal as acceptable and hence, addition on this count is deleted. 11. We have considered the rival contentions and found that expenses were crystalised during the year and, accordingly, there is no infirmity in the order of ld Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) for deleting the addition of Rs.1,05,800/- after recording findings as reproduced hereinabove, which has not been controverted by the department by bringing any positive material on record. Hence, we uphold the same. 12. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee has not charged any interest on advances made to his sister concern M/s Star Automobiles, Satna out of interest bearing loan i.e. from his cash credit account maintained at Bank of Baroda. Accordingly, he disallowed proportionate interest on loan amount diverted to the sister concern and added to the assessee s returned income. By the impugned order, ld Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) confirmed the addition after observing that asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iced that the investment were in the nature of purchase of furniture and fixture, office equipment, etc., not considered by the DVO as well while estimating the cost of construction of the show room. Accordingly, he did not accept the explanation of further investment by the sister concern M/s. Supercars Ltd. and treated Rs. 21,55,814/- as undisclosed investment of the assessee in construction of the show room u/s 69 of the I.T. Act. By the impugned order, ld Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) confirmed the addition after having the following observation: The investment of the year under consideration made in the construction of showroom at Bhopal has been estimated by the DVO at Rs. 92,24,659/- and it is not disputed. Rather , the additional investment of Rs. 19,57,283/- claimed to have been made by the aforesaid company on behalf of the appellant has been contended by the Ld. AR and the contention is found to be unacceptable for the reasons mentioned in para 2.7(i) to (viii) above. In view of the above, the plea of the Ld. AR to ignore the difference of Rs. 1,98,531/- as per provisions u/s 38A read with section 142A and Rule 3B of Wealth Tax Rules is no more relevant. Acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l address which could not be complied. He treated the deposit as unexplained and added it to the returned income u/s 68 of the Act. By the impugned order, ld Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) confirmed the addition after having the following observation: I considered the submission made by the Ld. AR as well as the report of the AO carefully. The claim of the appellant that the credit worthiness of the creditor has been proved is not correct since the source of investment has not established by producing his bank account and his known source of income. Even the confirmation of account is not furnished in the Paper books. What has been furnished in page No.61 is the ledger account of Hitesh Gupta, the creditor. Page No. 62 is an internal voucher which suggests payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 05/03/2008, after adjustment of interest of Rs. 50,000/-. There is no evidence on record to substantiate credit of the draft in the account of the depositor. That apart, how there is reduction of advance payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- for booking a vehicle will be reduced by Rs. 50,000/- towards interest and how that interest deducted has been booked is not made clear. This was not made verifiab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 1,45,845/- are lying since April 2001 etc. As discussed in para 2.9 of the impugned order, the deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/- of Hitesh Gupta was also lying since December 2004 which was claimed to have been repaid only on 05-03-2008 i.e. coincidentally after the AO added the deposit u/s 68 of the Act to the returned income of the appellant. However, neither the provision of section 68 for old deposits nor the provision of section 41 can be invoked in the given facts and circumstance of the case. Remission of liability does not constitute income [Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax Vs. Kerala Estate (1986) 161 ITR 155 (SC)]. On the other hand, despite non availability of the confirmations from the creditors relating to continuation of the deposits made by them, provision of section 28(iv) cannot be invoked since the appellant has not treated the deposits as unclaimed and written back the same to the P L A/c. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the ratio of the case in CIT vs T. V. Sunderam lyengar Sons Ltd is distinguishable. Money due by the appellant to his constituents only when not claimed by them and these are transfer to P L A/c can be assessed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty in the order of ld Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) for deleting the addition of Rs.10,13,579/-. 22. The Assessing Officer noticed difference in account of Mahindra Mahindra Limited and Hero Honda Limited and called for reconciliation statement. The assessee having failed to explain the difference totaling to Rs.4,46,649/- Assessing Officer added it to the returned income. By the impugned order, ld Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) deleted the addition by observing as under: Submission made by the Ld. AR and report of the AO were considered carefully. The appellant is an authorized dealer of Hyundai Motors. He is a partner in M/s. Star Automobiles Satna who is authorized dealer of Mahindra and Mahindra and Hero Honda Motors. Verification of ledger accounts of Mahindra and Mahindra (UV A/c), Mahindra and Mahindra (Scorpio), Hero Honda Motors (spare parts) and Hero Honda Motors (vehicles) were, in fact made by the Assessing Officer with reference to the books of account of M/s. Star Automobiles but the impugned difference was assessed in the hands of the assessee out of the bonafide error as the two cases are of same group. Accordingly, the addition made to the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
