Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 679 - ITAT KOLKATAAddition on advance from customer as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - Held that:- As rightly contended by the ld. DR there was complete failure on the part of the assessee to furnish any evidence either before AO or before CIT(A) and even before the Tribunal. The request for a remand is made without any basis or evidence being shown to the Tribunal to justify the order of remand. We have already seen that the AO afforded as many as 8 opportunities in the course of assessment proceedings. In these circumstances we are of the view that the request made on behalf of the assesee cannot be accepted. On the evidence on record, we are of the view that the conclusions of the CIT(A) are just and proper and calls for no interference - Decided against assessee. Addition as unsecured loan as un explained cash credit u/s 68 - Held that:- As far as the loan received from Shri Hakimuddin Behmat is concerned the position remains the same that even today confirmation of having given the loan has not been filed. It is therefore not possible to remand the issue on the presumption that Mr.Hakimuddin Behmat would file the confirmation to enable to the AO to make proper investigation. The request made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in this regard is therefore rejected. As far as the cash deposits in the bank account of S.D.Dugar and M.K.Dugar & Sons HUF is concerned, we are of the view that the AO ought to have summoned and examined those two persons with regard to the cash deposits in their bank account prior to issue of cheques to the assessee. We therefore accept the prayer for remanding the issue to the AO in so far as the two creditors are concerned. The AO will examine those two aforesaid parties and decide the issue in accordance with law. Expenditure towards interest on cash credit loan of SBI - Held that:- From the details given to us it appears that the assessee had deposited a sum of ₹ 26,00,000/- in his bank account in which the credit facility in question was availed by the assessee. There are two questions that need to be answered before accepting the claim of the assessee namely what is the outstanding amount of interest and whether the sum of ₹ 26,00,000/- paid would cover the interest of ₹ 8,86,927/- which was claimed as deduction by the assessee in computing its total income. The second aspect that needs to be seen is as whether this deposit of ₹ 26,00,000/- was prior to the accrual of interest on the loan amount in question in which case the benefit of payment of ₹ 26,00,000/- cannot be attributed to the repayment of interest of ₹ 8,86,927/-. We are of the view that these two issues have to be re-examined by the AO and for this purpose the order of CIT(A) on this issue is set aside and the AO is directed to examine these in accordance with law after affording the assessee opportunity of having heard.
|