Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 162 - AT - Income TaxJurisdiction of DCIT, Circle -1, Udupi, to assess the assessee - Held that:- There is no case for the assessee that DCIT was exercising jurisdiction over Udupi, without a direction or order issued under sub-sections (1) or (2) of Section 120. Assessee had never raised any objection before the DCIT during the course of assessment proceedings. In such a situation we are of the opinion that not only DCIT had the necessary jurisdiction to do an assessment on the assessee, but assessee by virtue of not objecting to such jurisdiction before the DCIT during the course of assessment cannot now turn back and say that the said officer was not having the necessary jurisdiction to assess it Addition u/s 68 - Held that:- Assessee has also filed affidavit of Shri. Shravan Nayak which say that he had requested Shri. Praveen Bhaskar Shetty to give the above money to the assessee on his behalf. But as mentioned by the Ld. DR why the assessee opted for a circuitous route for getting money from Shri. Shravan Nayak who was brother of one of the partners of the assessee, is something which require deep analysis. As mentioned by the Ld. AR it could be for a reason that Shri. Shravan Nayak was not readily having money with him for giving the loans. In any case what we find is that the AO had not examined Shri. Shravan Nayak nor Shri. Praveen Bhaskar Shetty. Though we cannot say that assessee had discharged its full onus with regard to the credits, it is a matter of fact that it had filed copies of bank accounts of Shri. Praveen Bhaskar Shetty and also affidavits of Shri. Praveen Bhaskar Shetty as well as Shri. Shravan Nayak. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the matter equires a fresh look by the AO. We set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remit the addition in so far as it relates to credit of ₹ 2 lakhs on 25.07.2008 and credit of ₹ 3 lakhs on 26.07.2008 and credit of ₹ 12 lakhs on 27.09.2008 back to the file of AO for consideration afresh in accordance with law Disallowance of interest - Held that:- Despite opportunities given by the AO and CIT (A) assessee was unable to show the business purpose of loans. Even before us Ld. AR was not able to produce any records which would show that the loans were for commercially expedient reasons. We therefore have no hesitation to uphold the disallowance made. Disallowane of ‘car expenses’ - Held that:- Disallowance was made for a reason that assessee could not produce any evidence for expenditure claimed. Even before us nothing was brought to show that the expenditure claimed was supported by any evidence. Hence we cannot find any fault with the AO disallowing 1/5th of the total claim. Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) - Held that:- Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, could not have been applied only for a reason that there was short deduction of TDS. Only addition on professional fees totalling ₹ 2,60,000/- for Asbuilt drawings, on which no deduction of tax at source was made confirmed
|