Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (5) TMI 248 - ITAT DELHI

2016 (5) TMI 248 - ITAT DELHI - TMI - Depreciation claimed on the computers - Held that:- After going through the depreciation chart, there is no error in the claim made by the appellant. The deprecation disallowance is hereby deleted. - Decided against revenue

Addition on unexplained credits in the name of Sh. Gokul Tandon - Held that:- As the additional evidences are filed by the assessee in respect of genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness, before us, in the interest o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nts were matched with the ‘ledger accounts’ confirmed by the loan creditor M/s Go To Customer services private limited, then there was no basis for the Assessing Officer for holding the loan amount appearing in tax audit report as correct and making addition for unexplained cash credit on that basis, was not justified. In view of above, we find that order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the issue in dispute is well reasoned and we uphold the finding of Commissioner of Income-t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

reasoned and no interference on our part is required. Thus, we uphold the finding of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the issue in dispute. - Decided against revenue - ITA No. 1952/Del/2012 - Dated:- 28-3-2016 - SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, Sr. DR For The Respondent : Sh. L.K. Poonam, Adv. ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order dated 01/02/2012 of the Commi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 92,38,635/-made as unexplained credits in the name of Shri Gopal Tandon; without appreciating the facts that confirmation was filed from one Smt. Mohini Tandon and M/s Allambana India, whose income tax details and creditability was not proved. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 12,33,000/-on account of unexplained cash credit in the name of M/s Go To Customers Servic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ring the hearing of appeal. 2. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income declaring loss of ₹ 1,90,64,303/- on 30/10/2004. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) was issued and served upon the assessee within stipulated period. In the scrutiny assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 28/11/2006, the Assessing Officer determined the loss at ₹ 33,58,399/- making following add .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sidering the submission of the assessee allowed relief in respect of all the additions/disallowances. Aggrieved with the finding of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The assessee filed an application on 21st October, 2013 under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 for admitting additional evidence, in respect of ground No. 2 raised by the assessee. It was requested to admit following documents as additional evidence: a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Representative of the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer made addition for unexplained cash credit of ₹ 92,38,635/- which was unsecured loan taken by the assessee company from its Managing Director Sh. Gokul Tandon on the ground that no explanation regarding the source of credits in the bank accounts of the creditor and sub-creditors had been furnished. It was submitted that no opportunity to submit such an explanation was provided by the Assessing Officer. Ld. Authorized Repres .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vided sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee and, therefore, the assessee may not be allowed to produce those documents now at the stage of hearing before the Tribunal. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the documents submitted by the assessee goes to the root of the issue of unexplained cash credit of ₹ 92,38,635/-, on which the revenue is in appeal. We don t find any mala fide in not producing these documents before the lowe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. DR submitted that computers worth ₹ 1,41,14,232/- were put to use only on 25/03/2004 i.e. for a period less than 180 days and, therefore, was entitled for depreciation at the rate of 30%, i.e., half of the prescribed rate of 60%, and thus the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the depreciation was correct. 8.2 The ld. Authorized Representative, on the other hand, relying on the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) submitted that the depreciation has been claimed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

h remark in the depreciation chart enclosed as Annexure- 1 to the form No. 3 CD. The ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has given his finding on the issue as under: 5. I have gone through the assessment order and the written submission filed by the Authorized Representative in this regard. I have gone through the depreciation chart for tax purposes. The main additions are in respect of computers. The total additions during financial year relevant for impugned assessment year are ₹ 1, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

efore us. On perusal of the Annexure-I to the form No. 3 CD filed at page no. 20 of the paper book , it is clear that nowhere it is mentioned by the tax auditor that computers were put to use on 25/03/2004. Thus in our view the findings of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the issue are well reasoned and no further interference is required by us. Accordingly, the ground of the Revenue is dismissed. 9. In ground No. 2, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of the addition of ͅ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ntained as joint account with Mrs. Mohini Tandon and few accounts belonging to firm namely M/s Allambana. The learned DR submitted that the assessee failed to explain the source of money advanced, thus, the Assessing Officer rightly made the addition. He further submitted that the Ld. CIT(Appeal) failed to appreciate that genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the lender was not established. The ld. Authorized Representative, on the other hand submitted that the assessee had file .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer, to examine all the additional evidences submitted by the assessee before the Tribunal and decide the issue in accordance to law. Accordingly, the ground of the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. 10. In ground No. 3, the Revenue has agitated the deletion of addition of ₹ 12, 33, 000/-on account of unexplained cash credit in the name of M/s Go To Customer services private limited. 10.1 The Ld. DR submitted that the in the detail .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

-tax(Appeals) submitted that the difference was due to an inadvertent typographical error in the amount appearing in books of accounts of the assessee, which was found to be verified with the amount appearing in the books of M/s Go To Customers Service private limited. He further submitted that inadvertent error deserve to be ignored in as much as there is no law that the assessment had to made in conformity with the tax audit report, particularly when there was no material to support such repor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n loan paid name of the person Amount of loan paid in rupees Difference as per details as per Annexure Go to customer service private limited 5,23,000/- 2, 46, 500/- 12, 33, 000/- 11. As regard to the difference, the assessee explained before the Assessing Officer that same was due to typographical error in the Annexure to tax audit report and the amount reflected in the details submitted by the assessee was correct. The assessee further explained before the Ld. Commissioner of Incometax (Appeal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

are as under: I have gone through the assessment order and the detailed written submissions filed by the Authorized Representative in this regard. The appellant has taken a loan of ₹ 17,69,500/- (sic ₹ 17,79,500/-) from M/s. GoTo Customer Services Pvt. Ltd. during the financial year 2003-04 relevant for the impugned assessment year. However in the Annexure VI to Audit Report, the amount of loan taken from the said party was shown at ₹ 5,36,500/-. The difference was ₹ 12,3 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ght on record the confirmation letter issued by the creditor. The creditor is also assessed to tax. The account copies in the respective books of account were brought on record. No discrepancy has been pointed out by the Assessing Officer. No enquiry has been made to verify the details furnished. There was a genuine mistake. The Assessing Officer cannot simply ignore the submissions which are supported by evidence. I am in agreement with the contentions of the Authorized Representative and there .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

not justified. In view of above, we find that order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the issue in dispute is well reasoned and we uphold the finding of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the issue in dispute. Accordingly, the ground of the Revenue is dismissed. 12. In ground No. 4, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of disallowance of ₹ 10, 00, 000/- out of various expenses claimed by the assessee. 12.1 The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee failed to produce b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd therefore the disallowance on estimate basis was not justified. 12.3 We have heard the rival submission and perused the material on record. The Ld. that Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has given his finding on the issue as under: 16 I have gone through the assessment order and the written submissions filed by the Authorized Representative in this regard. The books of account are audited which is acknowledged by the Assessing Officer while making the addition of ₹ 12,33,000/- as men .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version