TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess of the impugned transaction with relevant basic material. In the case of Shivam Patel from whom the cash loan was shown the assessee has not furnished any detail. For the reasons stated above in this order for want of proper relevant material the assessee failed to prove the identity of the persons genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the persons therefore unexplained deposits ( ₹ 158,500+ ₹ 1,68,000 + 13,300) to the amount of ₹ 3,39,800 is treated as unexplained and added to the total income of the assessee. Four persons from whom the assessee has claimed loan of ₹ 66,500/- the assessee has furnished confirmation letters and PAN of the depositors. The assessing officer had not allowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that copies of return of income, bank statement , source of income were not furnished to prove the identity of the person, genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the depositors. We observe that in these four cases the assesse has taken loan of Rs. (18500, 10,000, 19000 19000) totaling to ₹ 66,500/- and the PANs of the depositors have been furnished. In the cases of these four perso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee on this issue is partly allowed. - ITA No. 1460/Ahd/2015 - - - Dated:- 15-1-2019 - Shri Rajpal Yadav, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member For the Revenue : Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R. For the Assessee : Shri Tushar Hemani, A.R. ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This assessee s appeal for A.Y. 2011-12, arises from order of the CIT(A)-13, Ahmedabad dated 27-03-2015, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act . 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- (1) The learned CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of ₹ 685300/- made -by the assessing officer as unexplained credits u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 ignoring the facts that the assessee has discharged its onus of proving necessary ingredients of section 68 i.e., the identity, genuineness and credit worthiness of the depositors. (2) The Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals.) erred on facts and in law in partially confirming the addition of ₹ 100678/- out of total expenses and depreciation amounting to ₹ 201357/- claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing officer has issued noticed dated 13th December, 2013 which is reproduced as under:- Vide your aforesaid submissions you claimed to have received loans/deposits in cash from various persons as under: 1) Ajaykumar Seta ₹ 18,500/- 2) Aakashbhai Agarwal ₹ 19,500/- 3) Amitbhai Agarwal ₹ 18,500/- 4) Dhiraj Khakharia ₹ 18,000/- 5) Dikuben Maheshbhai Thakkar ₹ 18,500/- 6) Harishbhai Punjabi ₹ 18,500/- 7) Hemantkumar Patel ₹ 19,000/- 8) Jaydeeplal ₹ 18,000/- 9) MadhurKadia ₹ 18,500/- 10)NageshwarThakur ₹ 18,000/- 11)Rahul Arora ₹ 18,500/- 12)Rashmin Patel ₹ 19,000/- 13)Vinod J Thakkar ₹ 10,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the material, the assessing officer has made addition of ₹ 1,58,500/- in respect of advance shown from 9 persons as the assessee has not submitted any details or documents i.e.PANs, confirmation letters, copies of return of income, bank statements etc to prove the identity of the persons,genuieness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the depositors. In respect of 9 persons from whom the assesseee claimed to have obtained loan of ₹ 1,68,000/- the assessee has failed to furnish evidences in respect of so called loans deposit as to prove the identity of the persons, genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the depositors. Further in respect of 4 persons from whom the assessee has claimed to have taken loan of ₹ 66,500/, the assesseee has only submitted confirmation letter with PANs. However, the assessee failed to furnish the copies of return of income, bank statements, etc. therefore, the assessing officer has made addition of ₹ 66,500/-. The assessing officer has noticed that in case of Harish Soni, the assessee has claimed loan of ₹ 98,000/-. However, the depositor has given confirmation letter of loan to the amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erusal of the material on record it is noticed that assessee has not filed complete information i.e. in respect to cash loan from Madhu Kedia it is stated that she has been serving in a company at Kharshila (Rajasthan) however vague address of the lender was given as station Road Kharshila Chhatigarh. It is observed that because of incomplete information, it is not feasible for the assessing officer to carry out verification and investigation to prove the genuineness of the transactions. These material facts demonstrate that assessee has failed to prove the basic requirement of section 68 by not establishing the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the impugned transaction with relevant basic material. In the case of Shivam Patel from whom the cash loan of ₹ 13,300/ was shown the assessee has not furnished any detail. For the reasons stated above in this order for want of proper relevant material the assessee failed to prove the identity of the persons genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the persons therefore unexplained deposits ( ₹ 158,500+ ₹ 1,68,000 + 13,300) to the amount of ₹ 3,39,800 is treated as unexplained and add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 1,58,500/-+168000/-+13300/-)= 3,39,800/- (ii)Set aside for verification: (₹ 49,000/-+49,000/-)= 98,000/- (iii)Disallowance deleted (₹ 66,500/- + 18100/-)= 247,500/- as per the terms and conditions stated in this order. 6. Second ground of appeal of the assessee is pertained to the disallowance of expenses of ₹ 2,01,357/- . At the time of assessment the assessing officer observed that assessee has shown gross income of ₹ 6,20,768/- after claiming various expenses of ₹ 2,01,357/-. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has failed to produce the books of accounts and supporting evidences to substantiate the claim of expenses. Consequently, the assessing officer has disallowed the whole expenses to the amount of ₹ 2,01,357/-. 7. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance to the 50% of the expenses to the amount of ₹ 1,00,678/- 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record carefully. The assessee has claimed various expenses to the amount of ₹ 2,01,357/- against the gross income of ₹ 6,60,768/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
