TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actual date of death of parents, the sources of ₹ 2.50 lacs as moveable assets with his parents could not be explained by the assessee, return of income / bank account in support of this contention could not be filed by the assessee, the assessee did not produce the other two brothers to evidence his claim etc. Hence, the AO was not satisfied with the submission of the assessee and thus made an addition of ₹ 2.50 lacs u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained credit in the hands of the assessee. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO with the observation that the assessee had not been able to produce his brothers before the AO for recording their statements to support his version that the amount was received by him on account of family partition of assets. The assessee was not able to show the evidence in support of the ownership of the assets and for sale of such assets. Hence, we concur with the findings of the ld. CIT(A) which is sustained. Thus Ground No. 2 of the assessee is dismissed. Disallowance on account of loss claimed by theft/ robbery - Held that:- As noted from the assessment order that the assessee had claimed loss by theft amounting to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 15,000/- 2. Telephone expenses 12,58,484/- 9,983/- 3. Depreciation on Car 33,849 16,864/- 4. Running Maintenance of Ca 2,427 Total 37,234/- ₹ 15,000/- 5. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the application of Section 145(2). The provision so invoked and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, the same may kindly be deleted. 2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 of the assessee, brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading of petrol and diesel in the name and style of M/s. Gothwal Service Centre. The assessee filed the return of income for the year under consideration on 1-11-2004 declaring total income of ₹ 1,06,229/-. The return of income was accompanied with computation of income, audit report u/s 44AB in form No. 3CD and 3CD, annexures to audit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has stated that all the loans were received in cash and produced few creditors before the AO I the course of remand proceedings. It is submitted that there is no justification on the part of the AO in making the addition. 5.7 Having considered the evidence available on record, I find that the appellant has been given numerous opportunities in the last so many years during which the appeal proceedings have remained pending but still has failed to furnish complete evidence in this regard. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, it was found that the total cash deposits made by the appellant in the bank account are ₹ 27,30,000/- during the period under consideration and after a datewise summary was prepared and peak balance of ₹ 7 lacs as on 15-01-2004 has been worked out by the AO on page 2/3 of the order. The appellant has sought to explain this credit balance of ₹ 7 lacs in the account stating that cash loans were raised, which have been repaid during the year itself. 5.8 The appellant has however, failed to adduce enough evidence so as to satisfy the onus which is placed upon him u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. The appellant has failed to furnish evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above discussion, I hold that AO was justified in invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the I.T. Act and confirm the addition of ₹ 7 lac made by the AO under this head. 2.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 7.00 lacs made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act for which the assessee has filed all the details before the authorities below. The assessee has also filed the written submission which has been taking into consideration. 2.4 The ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 2.5 I have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The issue in question is confirming the addition of ₹ 7.00 lacs by the ld. CIT(A) u/s 68 of the Act. It is noted from the record that the AO while examining the cash book observed that assessee during the year under consideration had introduced a sum of ₹ 27.30 lacs on various dates in his own name under the account head of Ram Imprest and the details of the same are mentioned at pages 2 and 3 of the assessment order. The AO required the assessee to filed details but the assessee filed the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see had filed all the evidences like ID Proof, consolidated confirmations, separate affidavit by each of the creditors, copies of land holding showing their ownership on the agricultural land. Thus the genuineness, creditworthiness and capacity of the respective cash creditors are proved. Hence, the Ground No. 1 of the assessee is allowed. 3.1 Apropos Ground No. 2 of the assessee, the AO observed from the capital account of the assessee that the assessee had enhanced his capital with a sum of ₹ 2,50,000/- on 2-12-2003. Since no supporting evidences proving the source of this increase was provided by the assessee, therefore, the AO vide his letter dated 29-11-2006 show caused the assessee about the credit shown at ₹ 25.00 lacs on 2-12-2003 in his ledger account. The AO thus required the assessee to explain the source of ₹ 2,50,000/- shown in the proprietorship firm on 2-12-2003. The assessee vide letter dated 5-12-2006 (reproduced at page 8 of the assessment order) submitted that his father expired on 18-05-2000 and his mother expired on 25-03-2000 and on that occasion a distribution of immovable assets took placed amongst three brothers and he being the younges ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce, the statements given by the appellant are only self serving in nature. 6.7 Considering the evidence available on record, I confirm the addition of ₹ 2,50,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained capital introduction. 3.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 2.50 lacs u/s 68 of the Act. The ld. AR of the assessee filed the written submission has been taken into consideration. 3.4 The ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 3.5 I have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. It is noted from the assessment order that the assessee had enhanced his capital with a sum of ₹ 2.50 lacs for which the AO required the assessee to explain the source of deposit of ₹ 2.50 lacs in the proprietorship firm. The assessee submitted the reply before the AO that his parents passed away and due to settlement amongst three brothers, the assessee was given ₹ 2.50 lacs willingly by them. The AO observed some deficiencies in the submissions of the assessee like copy of death certificate has not been filed by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dence could be filed at the appellate stage. The appellant has failed to file a copy of the FIR or any other documents of the incident for the loss claimed on account of theft. 7.4 Thus, I confirm the addition of ₹ 11,735/- made by the AO under this head. 4.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed for deletion of addition. The ld. AR of the assessee filed the written submission which has been taken into consideration. 4.4 The ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 4.5 I have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. It is noted from the assessment order that the assessee had claimed loss by theft amounting to ₹ 11,735/- for which the AO required the assessee to explain and justify the same with evidences but the assessee did not file any documentary evidence as to theft of the amount. The AO disallowed the same and the ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO as the assessee did not file a copy of the FIR or any other details of the incident for the loss claimed on account of theft. The assessee has also not filed any supporting evidence on this issue before the Bench at th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
