9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing expenses. S.N. Head of expenses Expenses claimed (Rs.) Disallowed by AO (Rs.) Expenses sustained by CIT(A) (Rs.) 1. Staff welfare 3,48,861/- 7,960/- Restricted upto Rs. 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/- Rs. 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 Rs. 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 report, LIC premium payment receipts, copies of tax challans, TDS Certificate etc. The case of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Rs. 27,30,000/- during the period under consideration and after a datewise summary was prepared and peak balance of Rs. 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 Rs. 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 with regard to the genuineness of the transactions and reiterated the submissions filed earlier. The details of lack of evidence have been elaboratel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 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 reply vide his letter dated 5-12-2006 indicating the details of imprest amount of Rs. 27.30 lacs (assessee's paper book pages 1 to 4). Further the assessee filed the supporting ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 25.00 lacs on 2-12-2003 in his ledger account. The AO thus required the assessee to explain the source of Rs. 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 youngest was given Rs. 2.50 lacs which he deposited in capital account of his proprietary firm. Further the assessee vide another latter dated 11-12- 2006 (reproduced at page 8 of the assessment order) submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .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 Rs. 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 Rs. 2.50 lacs for which the AO required the assessee to explain the source of deposit of Rs. 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 Rs. 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 assessee evidencing the actual date of death of parents, the sources of Rs. 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 asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Rs. 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 the time of hearing. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue which is sustained. Thus Ground No. 3 of the assessee is dismissed. 5.1 Apropos Ground No. 3 of the assessee, the observation of the ld. CIT(A) granting the relief to the assessee amounting to Rs. 22,234/- is as unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
