TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 123
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....15G in time from the persons to whom the interest has been paid/credited? 3. Whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.4,47,907/- ignoring that the same has been held to be the bogus creditor by the AO as the assessee failed to prove the identity, genuineness and the creditworthiness of these creditors? 4. In the facts & circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may be set aside and that of the AO restored." 2. The first issue for consideration relates to deleting the addition of Rs.4,50,818/- being the interest disallowed on debit balances of the partners capital account. During the year under consideration the assessee had not carried out any business activity. In earlier years it was engaged in the business of production of cycles and rickshaw tubes and trading thereof but this business was stopped in 2004. During the year under consideration the assessee had neither purchased nor sold any item nor engaged in manufacturing activities. The opening stock declared at Rs.34,13,030/- was shown as closing stock at the same value. The assessee had shown to have received....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erefore, not justified in disallowing the interest of Rs.4,50,818/- out of interest payment to the creditors. The learned CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that debit balance in the account of partners was at Rs.59,48,974/- on account of losses suffered by the assessee. The amount of Rs.59,48,974/- did not represent the withdrawal made by the partners. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) came to the conclusion that no disallowance of interest could be made on account of debit balances of the partners. He accordingly deleted the addition. 4. Before us the learned Sr. DR supported the order of the AO by stating that the AO has rightly charged interest on debit balance standing in the names of the partners. On the other hand, the learned AR of the assessee submitted that losses suffered by the assessee firm had not been debited in the account of the partners but shown separately. There was credit balance of Rs.33,73,111/- as on 31st March, 2005 which is evident from the balance sheet. Credit balance as on 31st March, 2006 in the partners' account was Rs.23,72,111/-. The debit balance after adjusting the credit balance in partners' account was Rs.59,46,974/-. Since the partners hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tax was not deducted at source on an understanding that Form 15G/15H for non-deduction of TDS was submitted from various unsecured depositors received by the firm on 4.4.2006, 5.04.2006 and 6.04.206 and same were duly filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut. Only on the strength of these forms no TDS was deducted by the assessee. It was also submitted that filing of From No.15G/15H was a technical mistake not to be conclusive in order to decide that the same were either not received in time or the liability for making TDS from the said payees had already arisen before that date. In any case except the technical mistake no loss whatsoever either procedural or factual has been caused to the department by obtaining the forms No.15G/15H on 4th, 5th and 6th April, 2006 instead of obtaining the same on or before 31st March, because the due date for filing thereof was 7th April, before which date the same were actually filed before the CIT, Meerut. The learned CIT(A) on consideration of the above submissions made by the assessee observed that the addition u/s 40(a)(ia) has been only on technical ground of accepting form No.15G/15H after the close of the financial year. No los....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... discretion with the CIT(A) to extend the time of filing of form No1.5G/15H beyond the last date of accounting year. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the learned CIT(A) was not right in directing the AO to allow the deduction on the ground that no loss of revenue has occurred and delay in filing was technical in nature. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the order of the Assessing Officer on this ground. 10. The last issue for consideration relates to deleting the addition of Rs.4,47,907/- u/s 68 for alleged unexplained unsecured loans. The facts of the case relating to this ground are that the AO added the amount of Rs.3,97,907/- being the amount of fresh unsecured loan in the form of deposits received from 55 persons on the ground that the assessee did not file copy of account of said depositors even after acquiring the same during the assessment proceedings. The AO has added total of all fresh deposits below Rs.50,000/-. The fresh evidences submitted by the assessee during appellate proceedings in the form of copies of accounts were confronted to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer had not commented upon in remand proceedings on the grou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT(A) observed that additional evidence was confronted to the AO but she did not comment thereupon. The learned CIT(A) therefore, treated the deposits by 55 persons at Rs.3,97,907/- as genuine and deleted the addition. 13. Before us, the learned Sr. DR submitted that the assessee had not filed confirmation before the AO and the AO has objected to admission of additional evidence. The AO has not examined the creditors. He also submitted that the learned CIT(A) has also not examined the genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the loan deposits. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) was not correct in deleting the addition. On the other hand, the learned AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee had produced before the CIT(A) the details of deposits in the names of depositors, amounts deposited by them with supporting documents to prove their identity etc. besides specifically mentioned therein that such deposits included Rs.84,010/- renewal of old deposits. As regards deposits of Rs.50,000/- made by Shri Manoj Kumar, it was submitted that he had filed confirmation. It was also submitted that it was an old account with opening credit balance of Rs.4,345/-. He has further ....