9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice u/s 153A was served. The Assessing Officer made certain additions. The CIT (A) has deleted. Now, the assessee is in appeal by taking the following grounds of appeal :- "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in not considering the merits of the case and in deleting the addition made by the AO after disallowing interest of Rs. 66,000/- paid to others, ignoring the specific finding of the AO based on the copies of accounts furnished by the assessee before him wherein no interest has been shown in the respective accounts. 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in reducing the addition of Rs. 43,301/- to Rs. 22,460/- made by the AO 1/4th of the expenses claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to others. 4. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has debited a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of interest paid to others which he did not believe to be genuine in view of copy of accounts filed by the assessee wherein no interest has been shown in respect of these accounts. 5. We have heard both the sides on the issue. We find that the copy of balance sheet and profit and loss account submitted by the assessee clearly shows that loans and interest were appearing as liability as on 31.03.2005 at Rs. 18,50,000/- which stands tallied with the bank accounts which was also placed before the authorities below. The ld. DR was unable to controvert the submissions of the assessee in this regard, therefore, we find no fault in the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m undisclosed source of income. On the other hand, ld. AR relied on the order of the CIT (A) and submitted that Topcon Retinal Camera was agreed to be purchased on trial basis and same was purchased from Shri Ravi Mehra of M/s. Eye Tech Industries. This equipment was not found to be up-to-mark as claimed earlier, therefore, the same sale offer was rejected. The assessee has submitted that e-message received from the said company was also placed before the authorities below. There was no evidence that the assessee has made the payment for the camera. There is also no evidence that M/s. Eye Tech Industries has received the payment for the camera. In view of these facts, he submitted that there are no merits in this revenue's ground of appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egularly followed by the assessee. In view of these facts, we find no merits in the appeal of the revenue on this ground. 14. Ground No.5 is general in nature and does not require any adjudication. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue being ITA No.4815/Del/2010 stands dismissed. ITA No.4816/Del/2010 16. This appeal filed by the revenue emanates from the order of CIT (A), Meerut dated 18.03.2010 for the assessment year 2006-07. 17. In the ground no.1, the issue involved is against the deletion of addition of interest of Rs. 78,500/- paid to others. 18. We have heard both the sides on the issue. We find that the loans and interest appearing in the liability as on 31.03.2006 at Rs. 12,50,000/- in the books of assessee. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of the CIT (A). 21. Ground No.3 is general in nature and does not require any adjudication. 22. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue being ITA No.4816/Del/2010 stands dismissed. ITA No.1884/Del/2012 23. This appeal filed by the revenue emanates from the order of CIT (A), Meerut dated 27.01.2012 for the assessment year 2005-06. 24. The assessee is an HUF. The CIT (A) deleted the addition of Rs. 10,90,000/- made on account of unexplained cash credits u/s 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The revenue is contending that since the assessee has failed to furnish any source of the funds which has been invested in the KVPs, the onus was certainly on the assessee to prove the credit appearing in its books which remained totally undi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me of coparceners and the members of HUF. The source of investment of KVPs for the financial year 2004-05 was out of maturity and re-maturity of earlier investments. The assessee submitted a fund flow chart and the revenue could not controvert the facts of fund flow chart. The assessee has able to demonstrate that he was having Rs. 10,70,000/- with him which was invested during the year. In view of these facts, we find no fault in the order of the CIT (A) and we dismiss the ground of revenue's appeal.
26. In the result, the appeal of the revenue being ITA No.1884/Del/2012 stands dismissed.
27. To sum up : all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced in open court on this 24th day of April, 2014. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
