Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 1086 - ITAT INDOREAddition of gross profit - AO for adopting the gross profit figure as income and not allowing the claim of expenses made in the profit and loss account - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee is carrying on business consistently. Since the tax audit report has been filed, the facts remain undisputed that the books of account are regularly maintained. In the profit and loss account, various expenses incidental to running the business have been claimed. These expenses are duly supported by the Audit Report. Looking to the consistent running of business of the assessee this action of the Ld. AO of disallowing all the expenses claimed in the profit and loss account was not justified. Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition which calls no interference. Thus ground no.1 raised by the revenue stands dismissed. Addition u/s 68 for unsecured loan - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee took, unsecured loan from existing loan creditors in other words those parties which have already given unsecured loan to the assessee in preceding years further gave loan to the assessee during the year. Nothing has been brought on record that whether identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of these cash creditors were ever disputed by revenue authorities in the preceding years as no such material was put forth by the Ld. DR. Remaining amount we find that out of this sum amount of ₹ 40,50,000/- was received and was repaid during the year itself and for the remaining amount of unsecured loan of ₹ 40,50,000/- was repaid in subsequent A.Y. 2006-07. Assessee had filed complete details of confirmation of account, copies of Income Tax Return of the cash creditors along with bank statements to explain the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of all the alleged unsecured loans. Revenue authorities failed to find any discrepancy in these documents and even before us also Ld. DR could not file any evidence to challenge the evidences filed by the assessee. Under these given facts and circumstances of the case we find merit in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and the same stands confirmed. Accordingly, ground no.2 & 3 raised by the revenue stands dismissed. Disallowance of purchase iron scrap - HELD THAT:- We find that the AO made the disallowance for want of verification of purchase. The assessee placed these details before the ld. CIT(A) who after going through the same and also in view of the details appearing in the audited financial statement deleted the disallowance of purchase of Iron Scrap - Before us Ld. DR failed to controvert the finding of Ld. CIT(A) which therefore, in our view needs no interference. Accordingly ground no.4 raised by the revenue stands dismissed. TDS u/s 194C - Addition u/s 40a(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source and the Motor Bhada Expenses - HELD THAT:- AO was supplied with the relevant details of the Motor Bhada Expenses claimed in the profit and loss account. Before the Ld. CIT(A) it was stated that none of the payment exceeded the limit provided u/s 194C i.e. ₹ 20,000/- per transaction and ₹ 50,000/- in aggregate for transaction with one party during the year. Further there is no adverse remark in the tax audit report and also Ld. CIT(A) has examined the documents to arrive at the finding that TDS was not deductible on the alleged expenses and this finding of Ld. CIT(A) remains uncontroverted by ld. CIT-DR, we therefore, find no inconsistency in the finding of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly ground no.5 raised by the revenue stands dismissed. Addition u/s 68 of the Act for the sale consideration received from sale of capital asset - HELD THAT:- AO made the addition for the total sale consideration received from sale of land and also made addition for cost of acquisition of equity share - when the matter was carried before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee had filed the details of cost of assets and calculation of capital gain and the same were found to be correct. We find that the ld. AO failed to allow the deduction for cost of acquisition of equity shares against the sale of securities and similarly failed to give deduction for cost of acquisition of land purchased during the F.Y. 1994-95 & 1991-92 as claimed in the computation of income. Since necessary enquiries were carried out by the ld. CIT(A) by calling remand report and examining documentary evidences before deleting the impugned addition, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly examined the facts of this issue and the finding of Ld. CIT(A) remains uncontroverted before us by the Revenue authorities.
|