TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e – Decided in favour of revenue. Deletion of unsecured loan – Held that:- The assessee has submitted loan confirmation from all these parties - The loan shown from Smt. Raj Rani was outstanding from previous year and it was a carry forward balance and this amount was not taken during the year - The confirmation has been submitted with regard to the loan taken of ₹ 1,30,000/- from M/s. Pardeep Bansal HUF and the details of the bank statement and the income-tax details of the persons from whom amount was taken, was also submitted - Similarly with regard to amount of ₹ 1,68,000/- received from Smt. Preeti Bansal, sister-in-law, necessary confirmation was submitted - Copy of the return of income was also submitted along with the copy of bank statement – thus, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 2379/Del./2013, CO No. 158/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 21-10-2014 - Shri I. C. Sudhir And Shri B. C. Meena,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri S.K. Goyal, CA For the Respondent : Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR ORDER Per B. C. Meena, Accountant Member : The appeal filed by the Revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee em ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Dinesh Bansal. Assessee filed income tax return, wealth tax return and gift deed and affidavit etc. of Shri Dinesh Bansal before the AO but even then addition was made. Shri Dinesh Bansal appeared before the appellate authorities and confirmed that he gave gift in jewellery to his brother. The CIT appeal has rightly deleted the addition. The ground raised by the revenue in appeal has no merit and therefore liable to be dismissed on both facts and in law. 3. The Department objected the deletion of ₹ 3,98,000/- on account of unsecured loan. The assessee filed the relevant documents relating to loan received from Pardeep Bansal (HUF) and from Priti Bansal. No loan was received during the year from Smt. Rajrani but even then addition was made. The CIT Appeal has rightly deleted the addition after verifying the documents and being satisfied. The Ground raised by the revenue in appeal has no merits and therefore liable to be dismissed on both facts and in law. 3. In the ground no.1 of the revenue s appeal and ground no.1 of cross objection of assessee, the issue involved is deleting the addition of ₹ 8,59,248/- made by Assessing Officer on account of gross profit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AR. In the light of the documents, including the sales tax returns and VAT paid challans filed before the AO, the enhancement in the GP ratio and the addition of ₹ 6,94,738/- does not appear justified, particularly when no defects have been brought on record by the AO. The purchase and sales ledgers along with the audited balance sheet, P L A/c. and Auditor's Report were also available with the AO. In the light of the above facts, the addition of ₹ 6,94,738/- appears to be unsubstantiated and based on pure guess work on the part of the AO. The addition is therefore, deleted. 4.3 In the third ground of appeal, the appellant has impugned the addition of Rs.l,64,500/- on account of commission income on estimate basis. The appellant has submitted that the addition has been made without any basis and being totally wrong and bad in law, requires to be quashed. The appellant submitted that commission on sales received by the assessee represents sales made through him by other jewelers and the commission received by him on sales made through him on his references and recommendations. The appellant submitted that sometimes customers come to his shop for purchase of jewellery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2008-09 and 2009-10, therefore, this gift was held to be non-genuine and the amount was added to the income of the assessee. The CIT (A) has deleted this addition by holding as under :- 4.4 In Ground No. 4, the appellant has impugned the addition of ₹ 13,44,015/- to his income despite the fact that he had filed an affidavit from his elder brother, Sh. Dinesh Bansal who had gifted him 1200 gms of jewellery. The appellant submitted that this jewellery was sold by him and the amount was introduced by him as capital. The bills for sale of jewellery are placed on record. The Return of Income of Sh. Dinesh Bansal for A.Y. 2009-10 is placed on record. The last assessment of wealth of Sh. Dinesh Bansal is also placed on record, which is for A.Y. 2001-02, along with the valuation of jewellery. The AO added this amount since Sh. Dinesh Bansal did not appear before him for crossexamination. During appellate proceedings, Sh. Dinesh Bansal personally appeared before me and confirmed that he had given a gift of jewellery to his younger brother, since he required the money for his business. He submitted that the family lived together as a joint family headed by their father and the fam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... struments in his favour. However, the inference of genuineness does not readily follow merely on identification of the lender on receipt of money through banking channels. His capacity to make a loan is equally relevant. In the instant case the capacity of the lenders was hardly proven as identical cash was deposited just prior to clearing in favour of the assessee. Reliance is placed on the following decisions by: 1. Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v Mohankala (P) 291 ITR 278 (2007) 2. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sajan Dass Sons vs CIT (264 ITR 435) Hence, the sum of ₹ 3,98,000/- is treated as income of the assessee and added to the total income of the assessee. I am also satisfied that the assessee has concealed his particulars of income up to this extent, therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are also intimated separately. 11. The CTI (A) has deleted this addition by holding as under :- 4.5 In Ground No. 5, the appellant has impugned the addition of ₹ 3,98,000/- to his income on account of unverified unsecured loans. The appellant submitted that the loan confirmations were filed in all the three cases. The ld. AR o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
