TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed from the estimated income. Therefore, the CIT(A) has followed the order of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case, hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the same is upheld. The appeal of the revenue on this ground is dismissed. Addition towards unproved loan creditors - Held that:- As per the information available from the CIT(A)’s order, the assessee has submitted the complete information to the A.O. with regard to both the credits. Copies also submitted to the CIT(A) the Ld. CIT(A) after verifying the PAN card, bank account, IT return and all the relevant details held that the loans were not squared up and the assessee has established the identity of creditors, capacity and the genuinene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, the A.O. estimated the income of ₹ 91,11,388/- @ 8% on contract receipts but not allowed the depreciation. Another addition made by the A.O. was in respect of the unsecured loans accepted from Mr. G. Ajay Kumar Mr. G. Sudheer Kumar amounting to ₹ 5,84,615/- and ₹ 6,13,267/- respectively. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. Hence, the revenue is in appeal before us. During the appeal hearing, the Ld. D.R. argued that the A.O. has estimated the income @ 8% on contract receipts and the CIT has taken up the assessment order dated 29.11.2011 for revision u/s 263 of the Act and directed the A.O. to make the addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on that the issue has been set aside to the file of the A.O. to reconsider the issue as per law, hence, argued that the CIT(A) has rightly invoked the jurisdiction and allowed the appeal of the assessee, hence that no interference is called for on this issue. On merits, the Ld. A.R. submitted that it is established as per the precedences of law that once the income is estimated allowable deductions required to be allowed as per Hon ble jurisdictional High Court s order in the case of CIT vs Y. Ramachandra Reddy, [2014] 50 taxmann.com 129 (Andhra Pradesh), hence argued that there is no error in the order of the Ld.CIT(A), which requires interference of this Tribunal. 5. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e general instructions shows that the Ld. CIT intended to remit the matter back to the file of the A.O. to re-do the same as per law. Hence, we hold that there is no error in invoking the jurisdiction by the Ld. CIT(A) in the consequential order and hence we reject the argument of the Ld. D.R. on this issue. 7. With regard to the merits of the case, in this case the income was computed estimating the income @ 8% on total receipts. The CIT(A) has directed the A.O. to make the addition of depreciation as per law after giving opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the CIT(A) has followed the law laid down by the higher judicial forum allowed the appeal of the assessee. In the assessee s case for the assessment year 2008-09, the jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 11. During the appeal hearing, the Ld. D.R. supported the order of the A.O., whereas the Ld. A.R. supported the order of the CIT(A). 12. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. During the appeal hearing, the Ld. A.R. submitted that cash flow statement was submitted to the A.O. explaining the source and the A.O. has landed in a wrong conclusion that the loans were squared up. How and why the A.O. has arrived at such conclusion is only known to the A.O. Further, Ld. A.R. submitted that the entire information with regard to the loan credits was submitted to the CIT(A) also and the Ld. CIT(A) after thorough v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d another sum of R.75,000!-by cheque No.436165 to appel[a4in on 01 .09.2008 which is also evidenced by bank account copy. Ledger account copies of both loan creditors as appearing in the books of appellant firm were also submitted. Thus, all the three ingredients of loan creditor viz. (1) identity of creditors (2) capacity of creditors and (3) genuineness of loan transaction are proved by appellant. 5.3.2 Hence, I fail to agree with Assessing Officer that the loan credits are squared up ones that were outsourced from out of the appellant s unaccounted funds. Both loans are outstanding as on 31.3.2009. I, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to delete addition of ₹ 11,97,882/-. Ground of appeal 4 is allowed. 13. As per t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
