Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 732 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained amount on Google charges - unexplained investments - source of expenditure incurred on behalf of company through credit card - Held that:- The assessee is a Director of M/s.HMGT (India) Tours and Travels Private Limited and had used his credit card for making payments on behalf of the private limited company. The expenses incurred by the assessee by using his credit card on behalf of the company, was reimbursed by the private limited company. AO reduced the reimbursement made by the private limited company from the total credit expenditure incurred by the assessee and the difference was considered as unexplained investment. CIT(A) examined the cash deposits and after considering the reimbursement received by the assessee from the company, the balance was treated as unexplained investments. We find the issue has not been properly dealt by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer ought to have considered the source of deposit which had facilitated the credit card payments of the assessee (whether the expenditure is incurred on his behalf or on behalf of the company). Thus in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the matter needs to be examined by the Assessing Officer afresh Unexplained deposits with SBT - Held that:- Confirmation letter of the seller was not considered by the Assessing Officer nor by the CIT(A). In the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that the matter needs to be considered afresh by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall take into account the total sale consideration. The amounts the assessee had paid from his bank account and also from the loan account availed by the assessee. Unexplained investment - Held that:- The addition of ₹ 19,73,310 by the CIT(A) is an error in view of his findings in para 6.3(i) [page 9 of CIT(A)’s order]. The CIT(A) erroneously had not reduced the relief of ₹ 5,93,000 granted by him in para 6.3(i) of his order. Accordingly, the addition made by the A.O. is reduced to ₹ 13,79,710. No other arguments were raised by the assessee in regard to the addition made by the A.O. amounting to ₹ 19,73,310. Hence ground No.4 is partly allowed by restricting the addition to ₹ 13,79,710 instead of ₹ 19,73,310. It is ordered accordingly.
|