Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (2) TMI 562

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... – Addition of Payment of MVAT and Sales Tax – Non-submission of documentary evidence - Held that:- The CIT(A) stated that the assessee has not produced any evidence towards purchase of plot of land, flat and residential premises - No details in respect of the sources as to how they were utilised for purchase of the above assets were furnished before him to show that the investments on the above assets were made in the earlier years - no evidences were filed by the assessee to controvert the facts as stated by the learned CIT(A) – thus, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) – Decided against Assessee. Addition made on account of low withdrawals for household expenses – Held that:- The CIT(A) has rejected the claim o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... yment of MVAT Sales Tax of Rs.15,448/- due to non submission of documentary evidence of payment. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in allowing the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.57600/- on account of low withdrawals for household expenses." 2. The appeal came up for hearing before the Tribunal on 4th September, 2013 and the same was adjourned to 6th February, 2014 at the request of assessee's counsel vide letter dated 3rd September, 2013. However, on the date fixed for hearing no one appeared on behalf of the assessee nor there is any application for adjournment. However, the learned D.R. submitted that there is no merit in the appeal of the assessee as there is no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... furnished and its payments are also not substantiated. The AO disallowed 10% of the total purchase, which comes to Rs. 1,29,056/- and added to the total income of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) also confirmed the said action of the AO. Hence the assessee is in appeal before us in ground No. 1 of the appeal. 5. Since the assessee has not claimed the benefit of section 44AF in the return filed and also could not furnish the requisite vouchers to authenticate the purchases claimed by the assessee, we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the authorities below in making adhoc disallowance of 10% towards purchases. Therefore, ground No. 1 of the appeal taken by the assessee is rejected. 6. In respect of ground No. 2 of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ere with the order of the learned CIT(A). Hence ground No. 2 of the appeal taken by the assessee is rejected. 9. In respect of ground No. 3 of the appeal the AO has stated that as per the Balance Sheet as on 31st March, 2007, on the Liabilities side the assessee has shown M. VAT and Sales Tax at Rs. 564/- and Rs. 14,924/- respectively. The assessee was asked to furnish challans of Sale Tax and M. VAT payment but the assessee failed to furnish the same. In view of the above the AO added the aggregate amount of Rs. 15,488/- to the income of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO as the assessee could not furnish the requisite evidence in respect of the above payment. 10. In the appeal before us also no detail .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of his wife and his son of Rs. 36,000/- and Rs. 54,000/- respectively merely because the assessee had not produced copies of the bank account, evidence of source of income and expenditure incurred, etc. Considering the submissions of the assessee before the authorities below and the fact that the assessee has shown total withdrawals of Rs. 1,83,000/- and without giving further brake up by the authorities below, we hold that the said addition of Rs. 57,600/- on account of low withdrawals for household expenses is not justified as the same is not supported by facts by the authorities below. Hence we delete the said addition of Rs. 57,600/- by allowing ground No. 4 of the appeal taken by the assessee. 13. In the result, the appeal of the as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates