Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 1728 - AT - Income TaxTrading addition - Held that:- In keeping with “Vinod Kumar vs. ITO” (2014 (10) TMI 960 - ITAT, AMRITSAR) the audited books of account of the assessee having not been rejected, the assessee’s trading results for the year under consideration are deemed to have been accepted by the AO. Accordingly, the addition of ₹ 50,000/- restricted to ₹ 30,000/- by the ld. CIT(A), is deleted. Addition u/s 68 - AO concluded that the salary paid to Shree Pal was nothing but artificial funds had been generated in the hands of Shree Pal for utilizing the assessee’s unaccounted money, which had been brought back in the garb of loan - Held that:- We allow the assessee an opportunity to produce Shree Pal before the AO, who, after examining Shree Pal and giving due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, shall redecide the matter. Accordingly, Ground no.2 is accepted for statistical purposes. Addition as loan by the assessee from Sh. Rajender Kumar Mittal - Held that:- has amply discharged his onus by identifying the depositor and duly producing along with him relevant documents before the AO. The AO recorded the statement of the depositor u/s 131 of the Act. The factum of the depositor having earned income of ₹ 1.5/2.00 lacs per annum from doing part time work, has no where been questioned by the department. It is also equally true that the amount in question was received through banking channel. It is also true that the depositor specifically stated having received back the loan amount. The assessee is also right in contending that it was not his responsibility to prove the source of the amount in the account of the depositor. In this regard as per the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of “S. Hastimal vs. CIT” (1962 (12) TMI 60 - MADRAS HIGH COURT), there is no presumption that the assessee had special knowledge of the source of his source or the origin of origin. - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition on account of low household expenses - Held that:- It has been shown that the household withdrawals @ ₹ 7,000/- per month for a family of three including wife and single child is sufficient and adequate. Therefore, this Ground rejected.
|