TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances, we are of the opinion that the addition for the amount of ₹ 3 lakhs made during the impugned assessment year was uncalled for. Such addition stands deleted. - Decided in favour of assesee. Addition on account of ‘house lease amount’ - Held that:- It is clear that one of the cheques for ₹ 1,50,000/- was dated.25.04.2005. If that be so, ‘house lease amount’ that ought have been there in the statement of affairs as on 31.03.2005 was ₹ 6 lakhs and not ₹ 7,50,000/-. AO had clearly given a finding that assessee was unable to show entries in its books of account for receipt of such amounts. Closing cash and bank balance as on 31.03.2005 came only to ₹ 44,499/- and hence evidently did not include the post dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see it has raised seven grounds of which grounds 1 and 7 are general needing no adjudication. Ground 6 is consequential since it assails levy of interest u/s.234B and 234C of the Incometax Act, 1961 ( the Act in short) and this also does not need any specific adjudication. 02. Vide its ground number 2, assessee is aggrieved that a credit of ₹ 3,00,000/- in the name of Shri. Govinda Reddy was disallowed by the AO and such disallowance was confirmed by the CIT (A). 03. Facts apropos are that assessee, a seller of second hand vehicles, had filed return of income declaring income of ₹ 3,51,250/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee was required to produce books of account, details regarding closing stock, co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that the sum of ₹ 3 lakhs was shown as payable to Shri. Govinda Reddy in the said statement. As per the Ld. AR, it was the very same amount that appeared in the liability side of the statement of affairs as on 31.03.2006 filed along with the return for the impugned assessment year. Thus according to him, the balance was only a carry forward of earlier balance and addition ought not have been made during the impugned assessment year. 06. Per contra, Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of authorities below and submitted that assessee could not prove the credit. As per the Ld. DR when assessee failed to give any evidence regarding the genuineness of the credit, a cessation of liability could be presumed. In his opinion, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ievance raised by the assessee is that a sum of ₹ 7,50,000/- shown as a liability in its statement of affairs was disallowed by the AO, and such disallowance was confirmed by the CIT (A). 09. Facts apropos are that assessee had in its statement of affairs as on 31.03.2006 shown house lease amount of ₹ 7,50,000/- as a liability. Explanation of the assessee was that the said amount was received from one Shri. Mohammed Sarshad for lease of a residential building owned by the assessee, located in HSR Layout, Bangalore. As per the assessee, this amount was received from Shri. Mohammed Sarshad, by way of cheque nos.349851 for ₹ 5,50,000/- and No.349853 for ₹ 1,50,000/-, both of which were dated 26.03.2005. As per the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reason the lease-agreement was disbelieved. Ld. AR submitted that assessee had proved the genuineness of the credit and also produced the confirmation in the nature of the lease agreement. Thus according to him, addition made by lower authorities was incorrect. 11. Per contra, Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of lower authorities. According to him, lease agreement dt.26.03.2005 could not be believed as a source for ₹ 7,50,000/- shown in the statement of affairs as on 31.03.2005 and 31.03.2006 for the reason that one of the cheques given by Shri. Mohammed Sarshad was due for payment only in F. Y. 2005-06. 12. We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. In support of the house lease amount of ₹ 7,50,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ently did not include the post dated cheque of ₹ 1,50,000/-. Thus the version of the assessee that whole of the amount represented receipt from Shri. Mohammed Sarshad as lease advance cannot be believed. However at the same time, we find that the sum of ₹ 7,50,000/- which appears in statement of affairs as on 31.03.2006 is the very same amount that appeared in the statement of affairs as on 31.03.2005 also and the addition had its genesis from this entry. In our opinion, a sum of ₹ 6 lakhs out of ₹ 7,50,000/- stands explained by the assessee as part of the opening balance. However, the balance sum of ₹ 1,50,000/- which assessee received during the relevant previous year being not reflected in its books of accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
