TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1007X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the loans, the observation of which, we find contrary to the facts on record. Hence, the addition made on account of the loans from the above parties is directed to be deleted. Disallowance of Interest - AO held that the assessee has advanced lons to various parties and no interest has been received - AO calculated interest @ 12% on these advances and disallowed an amount and deducted the same from the interest expenses paid - HELD THAT:- The total expenditure on account of interest claimed by the assessee was ₹ 30,41,080/- out of which an amount of ₹ 24,56,648/- has been paid to the bank on account of the CC limitrised. The remaining amount of ₹ 5,84,432/- has been paid nearly to 25 outstanding unsecured loan parties. Hence, it cannot be said that the amount debited on account of interest hasn t been utilized for business purpose. The notional interest calculated on the advances given is without any legal basis and hence hereby directed to be deleted. Undisclosed Investment - HELD THAT:- In tune with the accounting procedure and as per the impounded document, the interest @3% p.a. stands accrued to the assessee on the advance of ₹ 65,23,720/- w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on account of investment from undisclosed source, USL, interest disallowance without appreciating the facts that the additions are made on the facts of the case and the documentary strength impounded during the survey u/s 133A. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO at ₹ 7,53,000/- on account of unsecured loan received without appreciating the facts that the additions are made on the facts of the case that the creditworthiness/genuineness have not proved during the assessment proceedings which are not a business income. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO at ₹ 23,25,000/- on account of disallowance of interest in proportionate to non-business advances given out of interest bearings funds and interest is claimed as expenses without appreciating the facts that such interest expenses are claimed after estimation of Gross Prof it. 4.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO at ₹ 92,79,740/- on accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,00,000 - 1,00,000 3. Balkishan Sugla 1,00,000 1,00,000 4. Hukam Chand Rajender Kumar 4,00,000 48,000 4,48,000 Total 7,00,000 53,000 7,53,000 7. The assessee has fi led copy of account of these persons and copy of ITR. In the case of Bhardwaj, the AO held that the assessee has not furnished the ID proof and bank statement. Similarly, in the case of Lalita Devi, the AO was not satisfied with the copy of the ITR acknowledgment. The AO held that in the case of Balkishan Sugla and Hukam Chand Rajender Kumar, the assessee has not fi led the primary documents to prove the genuineness of the transactions. 8. The ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition on the grounds that the income of the assessee has been estimated by calculating the GP, hence no separate addition is called for on account of unsecured loans. 9. Before us, the ld. DR taken up arguments in two folds, 1. That the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icated independently on the merits of the case. 13. With regard to the loans from four people, while the ld. DR argued that even the copy of the bank statement has not been furnished by the assessee thus failing to discharge the primary onus in the case of the loans received from various parties, we find from the paper book, the relevant documents proving identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the loaners. We find that al l the bank statements of the loan parties have been duly submitted before the AO. The revenue has not disputed the presence of the primary documents before the ld. CIT (A) at this juncture. Hence, it can be held that the assessee has discharged the primary onus to prove the loans whereas the revenue has not acted upon such evidences f i led by the assessee to bring anything contra. The addition has been made without conducting any enquiry on the grounds that the assessee has not fi led the primary documents necessary to prove the genuineness of the loans, the observation of which, we find contrary to the facts on record. Hence, the addition made on account of the loans from the above parties is directed to be deleted. Ground No. 3 : Disallowance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merits of the case. The total expenditure on account of interest claimed by the assessee was ₹ 30,41,080/- out of which an amount of ₹ 24,56,648/- has been paid to the bank on account of the CC limitrised. The remaining amount of ₹ 5,84,432/- has been paid nearly to 25 outstanding unsecured loan parties. Hence, it cannot be said that the amount debited on account of interest hasn t been utilized for business purpose. The notional interest calculated on the advances given is without any legal basis and hence hereby directed to be deleted. Ground No. 4: Undisclosed Investment 17. During the survey operation, the revenue impounded document No. 78 wherein the following entries could be read: Amount Period Month Rate Interest amount From To 90,58,000 Sep. 2009 Oct . 2011 25 @25 ps 5,66,125/ - 50,58,000 Nov. 2011 Aug. 2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was asked to explain the entries on the pages 89, 90, 91 92 of impounded document No. 82. In response to same the assessee replied that these pages may belong to his father Sh. Prem Kumar Garg, who is popularly known as Amit Ji/Amit Dharam Kanta wale. There is no force in assessee s contention these pages are inter related and on the top of page No. 92 Amit Ji Bhiwani has been written. This page is a ledger account of Amit in the books of same one else. On the credit side the other person has credited Amit (assessee) on 20.11.2011 by an amount of ₹ 55,25,880/- on account of 40% share of plot at Rohtak Road. This is nothing but the investment. Other entries also reflect in other dates. On 07.05.2011 the assessee has paid advance against Rohtak Road Plot amounting to ₹ 13,33,332/- other entries of investment are 10,00,000/- on 10.07.2011, ₹ 10,00,000/- on 16.07.2011, ₹ 7,50,000/- on 12.11.2011 and ₹ 2,50,000/- on 30.03.2012. In this way the total investment comes to ₹ 98,59,212/- (55,25,880 + 13,33,332 + 10,00,000 + 7,50,000 + 2,50,000). The assessee has failed to explain the entries mentioned in this page which is his ledger account an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ransactions. While the assessee explains that there was no purchase of alleged plot at Rohtak Road, the revenue went on making addition on account of purchase of a plot which have not been proved. The figures reflect as under: Left Side Right Side S. No. Date Amount Narration Date Amount 1. 07.05.2011 13,33,332 Bayana Rohtak Road Plot 27.05.2011 1,00,000 2. 10.07.2011 10,00,000 Bayana Tukan Mandi 24.08.2011 10,00,000 3. 16.07.2011 10,00,000 No narration 05.09.2011 10,00,000 4. 12.11.2011 7,50,000 Bayana Jamaa 22.03.2012 7,50,000 5. 30.03.2012 2,50,000 No narration 25.03.2012 5,00,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
