Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 379 - AT - Income TaxAddition of unsecured loans - Held that:- It is clear that the assessee is unable to prove the immediate source of the transaction for the reason that the creditor is having bank account no. 071696 of UCO Bank, Barakar where an amount of ₹ 3,00,000/- was deposited on 03.10.2006 and on that very same day this amount was given as loan to the assessee i.e. her husband. Apart from this amount of ₹ 3,00,000/- there are small entries varies from ₹ 10,000/- to ₹ 20,000/- in the bank account and there was never a balance of more than ₹ 20,000 to ₹ 30,000/- in this bank account. Thus the assessee is unable to explain this transaction. Hence, confirm the orders of the lower authorities and the addition is confirmed. - Decided against assessee. Addition of unsecured loan received from Smt. Shashi Devi Poddar - Held that:- As gone through the current account bank statement wherein various entries of cash deposits and cheques issued are there from 24th April, 2006 to 3rd October, 2006 and on various dates the bank balance was more than ₹ 20,000/- and sometimes even ₹ 1 lac. It means that there was regular cash flow in the bank account from which the loan of ₹ 2,50,000/- was given to the assessee i.e. her nephew. In view of the above, it is of the view that Shashi Devi Poddar was having sufficient basis and funds to give loan of ₹ 2,50,000/- to the assessee. Therefore, no reason to doubt the same. Accordingly, this is accepted as genuine and delete the addition.- Decided against revenue. Cash credit received from Shri Kanhaiya Lal Poddar - Held that:- This is a merely small amount of ₹ 49,000/- advanced out of current year’s income. The current year’s income of the loan creditor is about ₹ 1,10,250/-, which is sufficient to meet this loan amount. Even otherwise, the loan was advanced on 23.12.2006 almost at the end of the year. Presuming that this amount was available with the loan creditor and amount was given by way of demand draft, no reason to doubt the same. Accordingly, this is accepted as genuine and delete the same.- Decided against revenue. Addition on low household withdrawal - Held that:- Assessee filed the details of other family members’ withdrawals like assessee’s wife Smt. Rinku Poddar wherein she has declared household withdrawals at ₹ 21,600/- and Smt. Shashi Devi Poddar amounting to ₹ 48,000/-. If these two withdrawals are also treated for family withdrawals then it will be more than the amount estimated by the AO at ₹ 60,000/-. Hence, there is no need to make any separate addition of ₹ 60,000/-. This ground of appeal of assessee is allowed.- Decided against revenue.
|