TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1090X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee as per the provisions of section 56(2)(vii). In the case in hand the claim of the assessee that the said amount of ₹ 44,370/- is the gift received by the assessee from various persons/relatives has not been established either by furnishing any evidence or any details or explanation, therefore, a mere claim of gift would not fall in the ambit of provisions of section 56(2)(vii). Therefore, when the assessee has failed to establish the claim of gift then the said amount has to be added as unexplained cash credit under section 68. Accordingly, we do not find any error or illegality in the orders of the authorities below, qua this issue. Disallowance of depreciation on JCB - Held that:- It is not the case of the A.O. that the assessee has not used the JCB for the business purposes and further when the assessee has received the hire charges from use of JCB during the year under consideration, then the mere delay in registration would not negate the fact of use of JCB by the assessee. It is pertinent to note that the JCB is not a transportation vehicle but a machine used in digging and other excavation of work and, therefore, practically it is possible to use the J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R of the assessee has submitted that when the assessee has declared his income under section 44AD and the AO has not found the income of the assessee as less than as required under the provisions of section 44AD, then no further addition is required on account of disallowance of depreciation. He has further contended that when the fact of purchase of car on 31st March, 2010 is not in dispute then even if the assessee has used the said car only for one hour, the depreciation as per the provisions of the Act is allowable. 5. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. There is no dispute that the assessee filed return of income and declared the income under section 44AD of the Act. In the computation of total income, the assessee has not claimed the depreciation on the car. However, in the balance sheet as on 31st March, 2010 the assessee has shown the depreciation on the car at ₹ 1,03,226/-. Thus the AO has made the addition of the said amount by taking the said amount of ₹ 1,03,226/- which is considered by the assessee only for the purpos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen the AO is justified in making the addition under section 68 of the Act. 10. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. There is no dispute that the assessee has failed to produce any detail or evidence in support of the claim of gift of ₹ 44,370/- received in cash during the year under consideration. The contention of the assessee is that as per provisions of section 56(2)(vii) no addition can be made if the aggregate amount is less than ₹ 50,000/-. We do not agree with this contention of the ld. A/R of the assessee because of the reason that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) are applicable only in a case where the claim of gift is not disputed. In a case where the AO has accepted the claim of gift then in such a situation the gift received to the extent of ₹ 50,000/- cannot be added to the income of the assessee as per the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. In the case in hand the claim of the assessee that the said amount of ₹ 44,370/- is the gift received by the assessee from various persons/relatives has not been established either by furnishing any evidence or any details or explanation, therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee is dismissed being not pressed. Accordingly, ground no. 1 of the assessee is dismissed being not pressed. Ground No. 2 is regarding disallowance of depreciation on JCB. 16. The assessee has purchased JCB on 3rd June, 2011 and claimed depreciation on the same. The AO noted that the registration of JCB was done with the RTO only on 29.08.2011, therefore, the AO has allowed depreciation for 180 days as against the claim of depreciation for full year. Thus the AO has disallowed 50% claim of depreciation. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT (A) but could not succeed. 17. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the AO has not disputed that the assessee has purchased the JCB on 3rd June, 2011 though there was a delay in registration of the said vehicle/JCB with the RTO. However, the assessee has been using this JCB for his business purposes and earning the income during the year under consideration. The ld. A/R has further pointed out that the RTO has levied a penalty of ₹ 5,708/- on account of delay in registration and, therefore, the registration was granted by the RTO with effect from 11th June, 2011. Hence t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
