TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 777X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come, it is revealed that the assessee has firstly added the capital expenditure in the written down value of the vehicles and then she deducted the sale consideration form it. In this way, it is absolutely clear that the assessee has decreased the value of capital gain. Further it is pertinent to mention here that the assessee has failed to produce any documentary proofs in regard of capital expenditure made towards the vehicles. In the absence of any documentary evidence, how can it is justified that the assessee has made capital expense – Decided against the Assessee. - ITA No. 363/Ahd/2013, CO No. 104/Ahd/2013 - - - Dated:- 11-10-2013 - Sri D. K. Tyagi And Shri T. R. Meena,JJ. For the Petitioner : Sri O. P. Batheja, Sr. D. R. For the Respondent :: None ORDER Per : D. K. Tyagi, Judicial Member:- These are the revenue s appeal and assessee s CO against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Valsad dated 31-10-2012. 2. At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite the fact that notice for today s hearing was served upon him through Ld DR on 03-03-2013. So we proceeded to decide the appeal of revenue and CO of assessee after hearing Ld. DR. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discharged the onus of explaining the source of cash deposits in her bank account and AO without making any further inquiry into the matter arbitrarily ignored the evidence submitted by the assessee before him. 7. Ld. CIT(A) after taking into consideration the submission of the assessee and taking reliance on various case laws deleted the addition made by the AO. 8. Before us, Ld. DR relied on the order of AO. 9. After hearing Ld. DR and perusing the record, we find that when AO asked the assessee to explain the cash deposits in her bank account, the assessee s contention was that this was out of sale proceeds of three vehicles sold by the assessee. In support of this contention assessee furnished confirmations from the buyers who purchased vehicles from the assessee, their addresses, copies of RTO sale letters etc. AO without making any further inquiry in this respect has made this addition ignoring the explanation offered by the assessee and without bringing any material on record to the contrary which according to us was not proper on his part. Therefore we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted this addition of Rs. 10,25,000/- relying on the various case laws ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rectness. 5.2 Thus, a lump-sum addition u/s. 69B of the Act on account of Rs. 10,00,000/- is also made on account of unaccounted investment in two vehicles i.e. GJ-21-T-9565 and GJ-21-T-9536 sold by the assessee as per Registration Certificate issued by RTO office, which is not shown in the books of account. 11. Ld. CIT(A) has deleted this addition by observing as under:- 6.3 I have considered carefully the rival contentions. I have also carefully considered the contents of the assessment order as well as the written submissions of the appellant. I find force in the contention of the appellant that unexplained investment in any vehicles has not been made by the appellant but on the contrary the cost of captioned vehicles bearing Regn. No. GJ-21T-9565 and GJ-21-T-953, which were sold during the year have been properly recorded in the books of the appellant in the year of its purchase and has been reflected in the books of accounts as well as computation of WDV in depreciation working as well as computation of income. Based on the factual matrix and evidences on record it can be inferred that typographical error made by the accountant can in no way be starched to imagine and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10,00,000/- made by the appellant as the typographical mistake of the accountant would not vitiate the fact that no unexplained investment has been made by the appellant. I, therefore, delete the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- made by the appellant. The appellant s ground No. is allowed. 12. In view of the categorical finding of Ld. CIT(A) that two vehicles i.e. GJ-21-T-9565 and GJ-21T-9536 were purchased by the assessee were not purchased in the current year as the same were registered in the name of the assessee in preceding years and have been reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee during those years which remained uncontroverted at the time of hearing before us, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 10 lacs made by AO and the same is hereby upheld. This ground of revenue s appeal is also dismissed. Now coming to Assessee s CO No. 104/Ahd/2013 13. The only ground taken by the assessee reads as under:- 1. Looking to the nature of business of the assessee as Travel agent, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have allowed the expenditure made for improvement in vehicle of Rs. 373080/-, towards repairs carried out to the veh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
