9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.0 The learned CITA) erred on facts as also in law in retaining addition of Rs.8,31,849/- being peak balance out of addition of Rs.36,94,526/- made on account of alleged unexplained investment. The addition retained is totally unjustified on facts as also in law, which may kindly be deleted. 4.0 The learned CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in retaining addition of Rs.11,591/- out of addition of Rs.6,26,189/- made on account of alleged interest income on above unexplained investment. The addition retained is totally unjustified on facts as also in law which may kindly be deleted. 5.0 The learned cm*omega erred on facts as also in law in confirming addition of Rs.25,000/- made on account of alleged unexplained loan from Aishaben Mohmadbhai as also erred in confirming disallowance of interest paid of Rs.3,000/- on above loan. The addition confirmed is totally unjustified on facts as also in law, which may kindly be deleted. 6.0 The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.10,500/- out of salary expenses disregarding the explanation and evidences placed on record. The disallowance confirmed is totally unjustified on facts as also in law, which may kindly b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted by the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition in the hands of the assessee. 7. On going through the facts of the instant case, we are of the considered view that the CIT(A), after taking into consideration all the aspects of the matter, has held that the assessee has not been able to provide any supporting evidence to prove the genuineness of the transaction or the creditworthiness of the lender. Accordingly, looking into the facts, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) so as to call for any interference. In the result, ground no.5 of the assessee's appeal is dismissed. 8. Ground Nos.6 - 7 disallowance of salary expenses, out of shop expenses and telephone expenses. 9. The brief facts relating to this ground of appeal are that during the year under consideration the assessee claimed salary expenses of Rs.38,500/- paid to three of its employees. The Assessing Officer disallowed the amount of Rs.10,500/- out of salary expense alleging that genuineness of payment was not proved. The Assessing Officer held that salary paid to Shri Narshibhai was excessive and further, he was a relative/friend of the assessee. Before the Assessing Officer, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view that the additions confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) are liable to be set aside. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has not disputed the genuineness of the services which have been availed by the assessee and nothing on record has been brought to show that why such payment was held to be excessive. Regarding other expenses relating to telephone use and out of shop expenses, again we observe that the CIT(A) has not given any basis as to why the additions are liable to be sustained in the hands of the assessee. In the result, ground nos.6 & 7 of the assessee's appeal are allowed. 14. Ground no.8 - addition of income in the hands of the assessee on account of benami concerns. 15. The brief facts in relation to this ground of the assessee are that the Assessing Officer, during the course of survey, observed that various other concerns are functioning from the same premises where the assessee is carrying on his business. However, the Assessing Officer observed that none of the parties except the assessee are doing business from such premises. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee is using the name of his wife Smt. Anjawaliben (Proprietor, Krunal Enterprises) and the assessee has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Tejabhai Naranbhai is concerned, it was found that said party has not complied with summons issued under Section 131 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has also established that in assessment proceedings in other cases with whom above concerns have carried out transactions, in fact, appellant was known to them and not Shri Tejabhai Naranbhai which prove that transactions of Deepak Enterprises are carried out by Appellant. 6.4 So far as addition made for Deepak Sales Agency, Prop, Shri Himatlal Velabhai is concerned, it is found that said person had died at relevant point in time. The Assessing Officer has also established that during the course of assessment proceedings in other cases with whom the above named concern had transactions, it was gathered that the assessee Shri Mohanbhai Sondabhai Solanki is the person known to them but the transactions were entered as per the bills received by them from the above person. These observations made by Assessing Officer are not rebutted by Appellant. The details gathered during the course of survey proceedings as well as during assessment proceedings clearly prove that transactions carried out by above four parties are in fact been c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
