9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w & facts. 2. That on the facts & circumstances of the case the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)- II Baroda has erred in confirming the additions of Rs.2,10,000/- fresh capital introduced in the Firm M/s. Neela Associates, Baroda in capital account as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. 3. That on the facts & circumstances of the case the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)- II Baroda erred in confirming the disallowance of interest paid under the provisions of sec.57 (iii) of the Act and ignored the Principle of Consistency as compared to earlier years. 4. That on the facts & circumstances of the case the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)- II Baroda has er ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cash of Rs.2,00,000/- from the bank account had been withdrawn on 20.08.2005 and deposited with firm Rs.1,00,000/- on 03.10.2005 and Rs.50,000/- each on 11.10.2005. 6. Now the Assessee is before us. The ld. Counsel for the appellant contended that the cash of Rs.10,000/- was credited in the capital account of the assessee which was withdrawn on 10.08.2005 from the bank for which he has filed affidavit of Shri Vipinbhai Vinubhai Patel who had admitted that the appellant was urgent need of money on 27.07.2005. Therefore, he gave bearer cheque no.258299 Account no.3096 drawn on the Union Bank of India, Race Course Branch, Vadodara for Rs.10,000/- to Shri Patel. Further, he submitted another affidavit of Miss Rati Sheopuri, the Vice President ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... total fresh capital introduced of Rs.2,65,000/-. The appellant had explained only Rs. 2.5 lacs vide his above letter dated. When again show cause notice was given by the ld. A.O., he replied vide his letter dated 21.07.2008 and claimed that cheque no. 258299 dated 27.07.2005 for Rs.10,000/- withdrawn from bank and deposited with M/s. Neela Associates and Rs. 2,00,000/- were withdrawn from the bank account of Bharat Co-operative Bank of SB A/c No. 9422 vide cheque no.21489 dated 19.08.2005. Before, CIT(A), similar explanations were given by the appellant. The assessee had not filed these affidavits before the A.O. or before the CIT(A). These are the additional evidences filed by the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice and giving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r consideration. No nexus between funds borrowed and funds used for the purpose of introduction in capital account of various firms was established. Therefore, he disallowed the claim of interest expenses of Rs.2,13,265/-. 10. Being aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the appellant carried the matter before the CIT(A) who also confirmed the addition on ground of there is no nexus between borrowings and the earning of income from other source and also no satisfactory evidences were filed by the appellant either before the A.O. or before her. 11. Now the appellant is before us. Ld. Counsel for the appellant contended that the detailed reply was filed before the ld. A.O. as well as before the CIT(A). The interest was paid for the purpose of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
