9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 721X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence was found to prove that the assessee have incurred the expenditure of household higher than the claimed by the assessee. 3. That the worthy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,50,000 (one lakh fifty thousand only) in respect of unsecured loan raised from Sh. Rakesh Kumar by not considering the fact that all the three essential ingredients viz., identity, creditworthi ness and genuineness of the transaction were filed. 4. That the worthy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding disallowance of proportionate interest out of disallowance of Rs. 27,643 made by the Assessing Officer, which works on the amount made as gift of Rs. 3,50,000 (three lakhs fifty thousand) by the assessee to Shri. Karan Bansal and Ruchita Bansal nephew and niece of the assessee by treating the amount paid for non-business purpose. 3. Ground No. 1 : After hearing both parties we find that during assessment proceedings enquiries were made in connection with the household expenses of the assessee. The family of the assessee consisted of three members including one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g household expenditure on different heads such as kitchen, electricity, petrol, social liabilities, education, telephone, driver and personal effects. All these expenses were work out purely on presumption, surmises and conjectures. No material on record has been brought about to estimate the same. Only a show cause letter was issued by his own estimate by ignoring the facts that life style of every family is differ from each other. Even place to place. In this case reply of show cause was also filed during the assessment proceedings (copy of the same was filed with previous reply at page Nos. 10-12) in which the facts on each at every point was narrated. But the learned Assessing Officer burst a side the reply and keep his mind to have made the addition on household withdrawals despite the facts that the appellant has not maintained any car, car driver, servant at home, no repair or white wash at home and other expenses were taken on very higher side on estimation." 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) gave part relief and decided the issue vide para 4.2, which is as under : "4.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r admitted that he has given this loan out of his savings. The assessee was asked to prove the creditworthiness of Shri Rakesh Kumar but nothing was furnished, therefore, the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 was added to the income of the assessee. 10. On appeal, the copy of the account along with confirmation letter, PAN copy, acknowledgment of the return filed were furnished before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and it was submitted that same proves identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. The same were sent for verification by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to the Assessing Officer who in his report submitted that bank statement was not furnished before him. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) observed that since bank statement was not furnished to prove the creditworthiness, therefore, addition was justified. 11. Before us, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that Shri Rakesh Kumar had filed Income-tax return also and he was produced before the Assessing Officer where he clearly admitted that he has given the loan. He contended that bank statement was also filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) copy of which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of Rs. 1,53,500 on account of unexplained cash credits." The above portion of the judgment clearly shows that nowhere it is stated that cash was deposited immediately before giving the loan. Shri Rakesh Kumar was stated to be a small person engaged in collecting pigmy deposits from public for bank schemes. If Shri Rakesh Kumar was having sufficient income then why he would have kept the cash at home and why he would deposit the same only one day before the giving of loan. No doubt Shri Rakesh Kumar has filed return but perusal of the copy of the return filed before us shows that he has gross total income of Rs. 1,95,095 out of which deductions have been claimed at Rs. 74,639 which means this amount has gone towards some savings and the same is not available in liquid cash. Shri Rakesh Kumar himself have been left with only Rs. 1,20,456 which is just sufficient to met household withdrawals. These facts clearly shows creditworthiness of Shri Rakesh Kumar has not been proved. The hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P. Mohanakala [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) clearly held that in case where explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source of sums found credite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
