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 721 - AT - Income TaxAddition to Household expenses - Held that:- Some of the expenses seems to have been estimated on a very higher side. There was no material before the Assessing Officer to assume that the assessee was maintaining a car still expenses on account of petrol and driving have been estimated. Therefore, considering the overall circumstances of the case, we estimate the household expenses at ₹ 10,000 per month which means the assessee would get further benefit of ₹ 24,000. Thus, this ground is partly allowed. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. Unaccounted loans - Held that:- Nowhere it is stated that cash was deposited immediately before giving the loan. Shri Rakesh Kumar was stated to be a small person engaged in collecting pigmy deposits from public for bank schemes. If Shri Rakesh Kumar was having sufficient income then why he would have kept the cash at home and why he would deposit the same only one day before the giving of loan. No doubt Shri Rakesh Kumar has filed return but perusal of the copy of the return filed before us shows that he has gross total income of ₹ 1,95,095 out of which deductions have been claimed at ₹ 74,639 which means this amount has gone towards some savings and the same is not available in liquid cash. Shri Rakesh Kumar himself have been left with only ₹ 1,20,456 which is just sufficient to met household withdrawals. These facts clearly shows creditworthiness of Shri Rakesh Kumar has not been proved. In this case the test of human probability laid down in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court] was held to be applicable in the case of cash credits. Therefore, in the case before us clearly the explanation is not satisfactory. It simply seems to be a case where cash was deposited in the account of Shri Rakesh Kumar and loan was shown in his name, therefore, we find nothing wrong with the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax in confirming the addition - Decided against assessee. Interest on advances - As submitted by assessee that in fact no loans were given to Shri Karan Bansal and Richa Bansal and the amount was actually a gift and by mistake it was shown as loan and advance - Held that:- Gift deed was filed before the Assessing Officer then the Assessing Officer should have examined whether really gifts have been made then probably no interest was required to be charged. However, there are no findings in the order of the Assessing Officer, therefore, in the interest of justice we set aside the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in this respect and remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of this issue because copy of the gift deed is not available before us. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
|