TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 740X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on FDR not disclosed in the books of accounts - Held that:- CIT(A) has returned a finding that the appellant is maintaining the books of account on mercantile basis and therefore the accrued interest should have been accounted for on such FDR and should have been declared as income during the year. We do not see any infirmity in the said finding of the ld. CIT(A). However, as far as the quantum of interest is same, AR has contended that the AO has presumed accrued interest @ 10% on FDR. In light of the same, we hereby directed the Assessing Officer to apply the interest rate as applicable on the specified FDR amount as prevalent during the relevant period. Alternative plea of the ld. AR cannot be accepted as it would be a case of fresh claim and there is nothing on record in terms of any interest of secured loans which has been contractually agreed upon between the assessee and borrowers and which has not been debited in the P & L account. Unexplained cash credit U/s 68 - Held that:- Assessee was required to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the lender and genuineness of the transaction in the form of copy of return of income, computation of income and bank statement but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onus of providing the details of putting to use the asset during the year, therefore he confirmed the disallowance of depreciation - No infirmity in the finding of the ld. CIT(A). - ITA. No. 803/JP/2017 - - - Dated:- 6-7-2018 - SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM For The Assessee : Shri S. L. Poddar (Adv.) For The Revenue : Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), Alwar dated 16.08.2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. In the first ground of appeal, the assessee has challenged the addition of ₹ 81,66,124/- made by the Assessing Officer which has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) without providing any opportunity to the assessee to submit his representation and not considering the written submission filed by the assessee during the course of remand proceedings. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, based on the information received from the Bank of Baroda by issuance of notice U/s 133(6) of the Act, the Assessing Officer held that a sum of ₹ 30,51,800/- being the diff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06.2017, the assessee was asked to produce complete books of account along with supporting evidences however, no compliance was made and another opportunity was granted on 03.07.2017 fixing the case for hearing on 07.10.2016 but again no compliance was made. Based on the above, the AO in his remand report has stated that the assessee was provided ample opportunities to furnish certain details/ documents but the assessee has failed to do so. No bills/vouchers have been produced by the assessee despite ample opportunity afforded to him. He further submitted that even during the course of assessment proceedings, ample opportunity were provided to the assessee but he did not comply with the same and the matter was completed U/s 144 of the Act. It was accordingly submitted that the details/documents furnished by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) remain unexplained and the same cannot be accepted as genuineness of these documents remained unverified. 7. At the same time, it is also noted that the Assessing Officer in his remand report has referred to the ld. CIT(A) letter No. 686 dated 07.06.2017 calling for the remand report however, as we have noted earlier, initial letter which wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsportation expenses, it has been contended by the ld. AR that no such payment aggregate of which exceeds ₹ 75,000/- in a financial year or ₹ 30,000/- in a single payment was made to any person during the financial year. Hence, the assessee was under no obligation to deduct TDS on the transportation expenses. In this regard, we find that at the assessee s paper book, at page 55, payment of ₹ 1.50 lakhs, ₹ 1.90 lakhs and ₹ 4 lakhs has been made on respective dates and the amounts have been debited under the head transportation expenses . Therefore, prima facie the contention so raised by the assessee cannot be accepted. Further, in absence of any documentary evidence in support of its contention, the addition so made by the Assessing Officer is hereby confirmed. In the result, ground no. 2 is dismissed. 12. In ground No. 3, the assessee has challenged the confirmation of addition of ₹ 4,74,000/- on account of interest on FDR not disclosed in the books of accounts. In this regard, the ld. AR has contended that the assessee has placed FDR with the Mining Department as security deposit and as a result, the assessee was not in a position to get ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e matter should be remanded back to the file of the assessee to provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee to submit necessary confirmation. 15. It is noted that regarding identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction, the AO has stated in the assessment order that the assessee was required to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the lender and genuineness of the transaction in the form of copy of return of income, computation of income and bank statement but the assessee has not furnished any details which can prove the same and in absence of the same, it has been held that the assessee has not discharged the onus cast upon him U/s 68 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has also returned a finding that the assessee has not discharged the onus of providing the requisite evidences to show the genuineness of loan amount received from M/s Tomar construction Company. Accordingly, we do not see any infirmity in the finding of the ld. CIT(A). Hence, the same is confirmed and the ground taken by the assessee is dismissed. 16. In ground No. 5, the assessee has challenged disallowance of interest of ₹ 32,88,78/- U/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Briefly the facts of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act and no addition has been made by the AO in the said year. It was further submitted that the assessee has not paid any interest to the creditors from whom the assessee has taken loans. It was further submitted that total interest free loan given is only ₹ 90,00,000 and the total interest free funds available with the assessee s amount to ₹ 123.44 lacs which includes ₹ 80.61 lacs interest free loans and ₹ 42.88 lacs of partners capital account. It was accordingly submitted that the disallowance made by the AO towards interest on the over draft account be deleted. 18. The ld. DR is heard who has relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted that there is nothing which has been brought on record in terms of any documentary evidences in support of the contention that the amount of ₹ 90 lacs was paid to M/s Ganpati Real Mart and Developers Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of shop and it is clearly in the nature of loans and advances which has been given interest free and the AO was justified in disallowing the interest on bank overdraft. 19. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is the conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d or expended for the purpose of assessee s business, the AO is justified in disallowing such expenditure. We donot see any infirmity in the said findings of the ld CIT(A). Hence, the ground taken by the assessee is dismissed. 22. In ground No. 7, the assessee has challenged the confirmation of disallowance of depreciation of ₹ 12,075/- on fridge debited in the profit and loss account. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish the documentary evidence in support of addition made in fixed asset however, in absence of any bills towards the purchase of the fridge, the claim of the depreciation was disallowed. During the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) has returned a finding that the assessee has not been able to discharge the onus of providing the details of putting to use the asset during the year, therefore he confirmed the disallowance of depreciation of ₹ 12,075/-. We do not see any infirmity in the finding of the ld. CIT(A). Hence, the ground taken by the assessee is dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 06/07/2018. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
