Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 77 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - unsecured loan received - observations of the AO that the assessee has failed to satisfactorily explain the cash credit - whether the assessee has satisfied conditions stipulated in section 68 of the Act or not in respect of cash credit availed? - HELD THAT:- Details of accounts along with confirmation, addresses and PAN of the lenders have been furnished to the AO for verification. Even the assessee has furnished copy of assessment orders passed in the case of lender for the relevant year for verification. Apart from that, these funds have been received by the assessee through banking channel, and therefore, all the ingredients necessary for proving cash credit under section 68 has been satisfied by the assessee. Looking to the details provided to the Revenue authorities and copies also available in the paper book, we are satisfied that the assessee has discharged burden put upon it by virtue of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Delete the addition - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of expenditure - Disallowance for the reason that the appellant was not engaged in any business during the year under consideration - Stand of the assessee is that, it has received deposits from members who have purchased property in its projects Kaivana Building and of that it has incurred expenditure towards electricity as well as staff salary and other expenses - HELD THAT:- It is pertinent to observe that the assessee has not shown any income or rental income nor it has pleaded before the AO that it was in the business of maintenance of the building. Both Revenue authorities have concurrently recorded a finding that complete details were not submitted. This expenditure has no connection with earning of interest income from the deposits- stand of the assessee, if it is being demonstrated that maintenance of the alleged building is one of its area of business operation and out of maintenance activity it would show income in future. There is nothing that sort of. The assessee was unable to point that any expenditure was claimed in subsequent year on this or any income for maintenance of building was ever shown by the assessee. After considering the finding of the ld.CIT(A), no merit in this ground of appeal. Also no merit in the alternative submissions of the ld.counsel for the assessee as interest income is altogether a separate income, and not linked with this expenditure. - Decided against assessee.
|