9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (7) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the CIT(A) had considered this issue in paras 5 and 6 of his order. 5. We have heard the parties. The CIT(A) had considered the matter in detail and came to the conclusion that there was no interference in the exercise of the discretion of the ITO by the IAC. The CIT(A) has given detailed reasons in the order. We adopt those reasons and hold that there is no force in the contention of the assessee and the ground taken before us is accordingly rejected. 6. The next ground taken by the assessee is that the CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the finding of the ITO whereby he had taken the status of the appellant as that of individual. 7. We have heard the parties on this point. The assessee filed original return on 27th Sept., 1977 in the status of individual. The revised return was filed in the status of individual on 3rd April, 1978. During the assessment proceedings vide letter 23rd Feb., 1979 the assessee stated that the status of individual was wrongly claimed due to ignorance of law. It was also claimed that five more persons had associated with the assessee in the business and they contributed capital and the share was claimed as mentioned in para 7 of the CIT(A) order. It ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. The issue is decided against the assessee. 9. The next ground is that the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,814 as unexplained investment during the year under s. 68. The ITO made an addition of Rs. 58,117 as un-explained investment under s. 68 of the IT Act, 1961 as he found the credit in the cash book as on 1st April, 1975 and the said amounts are mentioned as under: S. No. Name of persons from whom cash received. Amount Rs.) 1 2 3 . S/Shri . 1. Bateshwar 1,500 2. Sarjoo 2,501 3. Mahngoo 3,151 4. Kanhaiya 2,601 5. Sheo Nath 8,001 6. Mishri Lal (Assessee) 40,000 7. -do-, being expenses on Taxi, etc. 363 . . 58,117 On appeal, the CIT(A) considered the facts and circumstances and observed as under: "12. While setting aside the first assessment, my ld. predecessor found that further enquiries were necessary. He wanted the ITO to examine if the deposit of Rs. 58,117 appearing in the cash books on 1st April, 1975 did represent actually cash borough on that date and whether there was evidence to show that this cash was utilised in business in addition to the deposit of Rs. 40,000 made with the district authorities on 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neous expenses at Rs. 79,783. The ITO disallowed miscellaneous expenses to the tune of Rs. 33,775. The assessee claim this expenditure on account of supply of food to the employees, but the ITO rejected the claim of the assessee as he failed of lead any supporting evidence in respect of his claim. On appeal before the CIT(A), it was contended that there were as many as 30 employees and 23 shops at different places and considering these fact the expenses claimed were not excessive. The CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the claim was based on general grounds and there was no cogent evidence in support of the claim. He observed that he disallowance was excessive and as such he sustained the disallowance at Rs. 16,887. 13. We have heard the parties on this point and have gone through the material on record. The assessee claimed that he had 23 establishments at different places and he had 30 employees in his establishment and he supplied food to those employees and incurred expenditure of Rs. 79,783. In support of this claim, the assessee failed to lead any evidence before the authorities below. The assessee made the claim on estimate and the authorities bel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rities on concessional price, but the rates were fixed by the Government, as such the liquor under law could not be sold at less than the price declared by the Government. In view of these facts, he did not mention anything in the register which was maintained under the Excise law. However, he stated before us that no evidence in support of his claim was produced before the authorities below. He also contended that what type of evidence could have been produced in such a matter and in the end he contended that the CIT(A) was not correct in his decision because he has not taken into account the day to day happenings in this line of business. the Departmental Representative supported the order of the authorities below. We have considered the submission of the parties and we are of the opinion that there is nothing on record to substantiate the claim of the assessee. Since there is no evidence in support of the claim, therefore, the CIT(A) was perfectly justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 32,276. 18. The next ground relates to the disallowance of Rs 18,000 out of shop expenses. The assessee claimed shop expanse at Rs. 41,825 before the ITO. The ITO made disallowance of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidence was produced. According to the CIT(A) even if a presumption was there, the same stood rebutted as the assessee failed to produce the creditors and he confirmed the addition. 21. We have heard the parties and perused the entire record. The claim of the assessee, in our opinion, was rightly turned down by the authorities below on the ground that he failed to produce five persons in whose names the cash credits appeared on 1st April, 1975 and furthermore no confirmatory letters were filed to prove the genuineness of the cash credits. The CIT(A), in our opinion, was perfectly justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee that a presumption was raised in favour of the assessee under s. 132(4A) of the IT Act. Since the IT authorities did not conduct any raid, therefore, the question of any such presumption does not arise. However, the CIT(A) considered the alternative submission of the assessee and came to the conclusion that there was no evidence to prove the genuineness and the identity of the creditors. In view of these facts, we are unable to agree with the submission of the authorised representative. We, therefore, uphold the finding of the CIT(A). 22. In the result, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
