Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1136 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of loans u/s 68 - Held that:- It is an admitted fact that there are common names in the loan creditors and the list of investments in shares of certain companies of the group. This is the admitted position as evident from the application filed before the ITSC. It is the claim of the assessee that the transactions entered into by such names of persons can be partly genuine when it comes to “unsecured loans” and partly bogus when it comes to “investment in shares”. This aspect was not properly examined by the CIT(A) applying the strict tests while adjudicating the issue and while granting part relief to the assessee. This is the case of Revenue, when it comes to the unsecured loans, that the relief was liberally granted by the CIT(A) without scrutinizing the loan transactions properly. As we examined the documentation filed by the assessee with regard to the correctness of the transactions of loan creditors. We find “all is not well” with the documentation qua the creditworthiness, signatures on the confirmations, PANs etc. It is not justified as to why the creditors failed to give their signatures on the confirmation letters. Addition on account of agricultural income - Held that:- As decided in DEVENDRA P. SHAH, VERSUS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (1) , PUNE AND VICE-VERSA [2018 (10) TMI 1625 - ITAT PUNE] as per CIT(A) Net agricultural income is assessed at 65% of the gross agricultural income Assessee-Net agricultural income is assessed at 88% of the gross agricultural income - decision of CIT(A) is appropriate and it does not call for any interference. Unexplained Jewellery - Held that:- The jewellery found during the course of search action was worth ₹ 2.88 crores out of the same assessee disclosed ₹ 2.20 crores as unaccounted income of the assessee leaving the balance of ₹ 68 lakhs. The amount added in the hands of Netra P. Shah (wife of assessee) now stands deleted by the Tribunal. The relevant extract of the order of the Tribunal is given above. Considering the commonality of the facts, we are of the opinion the said order of the Tribunal in the case of Netra P. Shah (supra) is applicable to the facts of the issue under consideration. Accordingly, the issue decided in favour of the present assessee too for the same reasoning. Unexplained investment in FDRs - Held that:- this matter needs examination in the light of the details of the cash flow. In case of availability of sufficient cash balance is demonstrated by the assessee in the remand proceedings, the benefit of excess cash needs to be granted in favour of the assessee. Only exception to this principle is that the AO should examine the likely use of such excess cash for any other expenditure other than for making the said FDs claimed by the assessee.
|