Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 216 - ITAT COCHINDisallowance of 1/4th expenses, being repairs and maintenances of car on account of personal use - Held that:- The assessee itself had added back 1/4th of depreciation on car for personal use. Therefore, 1/4th of other expenses, relating to the car, has been rightly disallowed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). Therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). Hence, ground is dismissed. Disallowance being 1/4th of travelling and sundry expenses, which are not supported by proper vouchers - Held that:- This disallowance is an agreed disallowance by Chartered Accountant of the assessee and his signature is taken on the order sheet of the Assessing Officer to the above effect. Therefore, ground is without any substance and the same is dismissed. Addition as unexplained investment - contention of the assessee is that the finding of the Assessing Officer that it has withdrawn from the current account is wrong and in fact, it was withdrawn from the firm - Held that:- It is seen from the cash flow statement that the assessee had wrongly credited the net profit of ₹ 52,318/- to the cash flow statement. The net profit from the business is credited to assessee’s current account in the books of account of the business and has not been withdrawn from there. Therefore, this amount of ₹ 52,318/-, shown in the cash flow, is rightly brought to tax as unexplained expenses. Hence, ground is also rejected. Addition as unexplained expense - Held that:- In the cash flow statement, the assessee had credited an amount of ₹ 48,000/- being lorry income; but the amount of TDS i.e. 5,254/ was not excluded. This amount credited in the cash flow statement fall short of the amount of TDS and the same has been rightly treated as unexplained expense by the Assessing Officer which was confirmed by the CIT(A). Addition being unexplained investment - Held that:- On perusal of the order sheet of the Assessing Officer, noticed that this addition has been made on an agreed basis and therefore, questioning this addition at this stage without filing necessary affidavit, is devoid of merits. Therefore, the addition is upheld. Hence, ground is also rejected.
|