Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 48 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained (unsecured) loans - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- The claimed unsecured loan was supported with sufficient documents and the Learned CIT(Appeals) after discussing the explanation of the assessee in this regard has deleted the addition by passing a reasoned order. We are thus not inclined to interfere therewith - Decided against revenue. Disallowance of depreciation - the assessee did not produce original bills/challan for verification - CIT(Appeals) deleted the disallowance - Held that:- CIT(Appeals) held that the claim of the assessee regarding depreciation cannot be rejected merely on the ground that bills of purchase pertaining to the acquisition of fixed assets were not made available to the Assessing Officer. He noted that the Assessing Officer has not given his finding to the fact that the machinery and plants or other fixed assets have not at all been used during the accounting year under appeal or were kept idle. He noted further that the auditors have not made any adverse remarks in the tax audit report for the assessment year under consideration. The Learned CIT(Appeals) has accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to allow deprecation on the fixed assets purchased during the year under consideration in accordance with the admissibility thereof after necessary verification.- Decided against revenue. Disallowance of commission - addition made by AO with this finding that he was not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee in this regard in absence of written agreement between the assessee and consignment agents - CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition - Held that:- IT(Appeals) has deleted the addition on the basis that in other assessment years, similar claim was allowed and the Assessing Officer ought to have maintained consistency in this regard even during the year under consideration. The First Appellate Order on the issue is reasoned one, hence, we are not inclined to interfere therewith.- Decided against revenue. Unexplained share capital - CIT(Appeals) deleting the addition - Held that:- The assessee, about the non-furnishing of bank statement had stated that they had approached to the bank to get the bank statement but failed to, because it was more than 13 years old. The assessee has, however, furnished the confirmation letters from the shareholder containing the details of amount invested, cheque no., date, bank particulars, PAN and income-tax particulars. All these documents were filed before the Assessing Officer as well as Learned CIT(Appeals). On the basis of furnishing these documents, CIT(Appeals) held that initial burden of the assessee was discharged. We concur with this view of the CIT(Appeals). It is well established proposition of law that after discharging of initial burden by the assessee to establish genuineness of the transaction, the onus shifts upon the Assessing Officer to rebut those evidences for the denial of the genuineness of the claimed transaction. No such effort has been on the part of the Assessing Officer to examine the correctness of above stated documents filed by the assessee to establish the genuineness of the transactions in question. See CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008 (1) TMI 575 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), CIT vs. Value Capital Services (2008 (4) TMI 263 - DELHI HIGH COURT) & Bhav Shakti Steel Mines (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2008 (12) TMI 22 - DELHI HIGH COURT) - Decided against revenue.
|