TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interfere with the orders of authorities below - Decided against assessee Disallowance of expenses and under section 40A(3) - Held that:- Once GP rate is applied, no further disallowance could be made out of various expenses as well as under section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act. We, accordingly, following the decision in the case of Banwari Lal Banshidhar (1997 (5) TMI 37 - ALLAHABAD High Court ) set aside the orders of authorities below and delete the addition - Decided in favour of assessee Addition on account of cash credit under section 68 - Held that:- Since the assessee has failed to furnish any evidence on source of the deposit and credit worthiness of the creditor, therefore, assessee has failed to prove the credit worthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction in the matter. No submissions were made before ld. CIT(Appeals) and even no evidence have been produced before us to explain the above issue, therefore, we do not find any error in the orders of the authorities below in making and confirming the addition. - Decided against assessee Addition of deduction claimed under section 80C being the amount of tuition fees paid by the assessee for schoo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, the assessee had not furnished opening and closing stock inventories in quantity as well as in value, had not produced stock register and had not given any comparative case where GP rate declared was 0.56%. According to the Assessing Officer, if rebate and discount is reduced, then GP works out to 0.29% which was quite low. The Assessing Officer, therefore, invoked the provisions of Section 145 of the Act and rejected the books of account. The Assessing Officer applied GP rate of 2% resulting into addition of ₹ 29,27,768/-. No submissions have been made before ld. CIT(Appeals) to challenge the above addition made by the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(Appeals) finding no challenge to the addition before him, confirmed the addition in principle, however, considered the application of GP rate of 2% to be on higher side and reduced the same to 1.5% and granted above relief of ₹ 8,57,221/-. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in earlier years 2007-08 and 2008-09, assessee has declared GP rate of 0.10% and 0.0029% and in subsequent assessment year 2010-11, the GP rate was declared as 0.059%. He has, therefore, submitted that addition may be deleted. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 94,235/-. The ld. CIT(Appeals) also noted that the element of personal use out of telephone expenses cannot be ruled out. Since the assessee did not file complete details, therefore, addition was confirmed. 8(i) As regards addition of ₹ 34,95,000/- under section 40A(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee has made cash payments in violation of the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act totaling to ₹ 34,95,000/- in cash. The Assessing Officer noted the names of these parties to be M/s Gahlot Sons, Ludhiana ₹ 3,00,000/-, M/s Shakti Trading Co., Hoshiarpur ₹ 2,95,000/- and M/s S.M. Steel Traders (India), Mandi Gobindgarh in a sum of ₹ 15 lacs and ₹ 14 lacs. The Assessing Officer noted that despite giving specific opportunity to explain the payments made in cash, assessee did not file any reply therefore, addition of ₹ 34,95,000/- was made under section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act. The ld. CIT(Appeals) also noted that since no evidence has been produced before him and no submissions have been made, therefore, addition was confirmed. 9. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that addition on account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Tax Act. We, accordingly, following the decision in the case of Banwari Lal Banshidhar (supra) set aside the orders of authorities below and delete the addition of ₹ 94,235/- and ₹ 34,95,000/-. The ground Nos. 3 6 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed. 12. On ground No.4, assessee challenged the addition of ₹ 25,00,000/- on account of cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The brief facts are that assessee had shown unsecured loan of ₹ 25 lacs in the name of Shri Ashok Bansal. The Assessing Officer requested the assessee to furnish confirmation alongwith PAN of Shri Ashok Bansal and proof of his filing Income Tax Return. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish documentary evidence regarding source of credit in the hands of Shri Ashok Bansal and also to explain whether he is assessed to tax. The assessee did not furnish any evidence regarding source of the deposit of this amount. Therefore, Assessing Officer made addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Since no submissions have been made before ld. CIT(Appeals), therefore, addition was confirmed and this ground of appeal of the assessee was dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
