2009 (12) TMI 664 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 10,36,000 u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit.
2. Addition of Rs. 47,508 on account of electricity charges.
3. Addition of Rs. 13,820 on account of advertisement expenses.
4. Addition of Rs. 37,359 on account of mill expenses.

Summary:

1. Addition of Rs. 10,36,000 u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit:
The assessee raised fresh loans in cash from three individuals, supported by affidavits. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that none of the creditors had bank accounts or were assessed to income-tax, and questioned their capacity to lend. The AO applied the peak cash shortage method and added Rs. 10,36,000 u/s 68 as unexplained cash credits. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, emphasizing the assessee's burden to prove the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the creditors. The assessee argued that the creditors were family members owning agricultural land, but the CIT(A) rejected this, citing that ignorance of law is no excuse. The Tribunal found that the sale of agricultural produce shown by the creditors was not supported by actual crop yields, thus discrediting their creditworthiness. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions, confirming the addition of Rs. 10,36,000.

2. Addition of Rs. 47,508 on account of electricity charges:
The assessee claimed electricity expenses on a payment basis, including sundry charges and a portion of the previous year's bill. The AO disallowed Rs. 47,508, stating that the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting and could not claim expenses on a cash basis. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order as the assessee did not provide any arguments or material to contest the findings.

3. Addition of Rs. 13,820 on account of advertisement expenses:
The AO disallowed Rs. 13,820 claimed for advertisement expenses, arguing that the assessee, engaged in job work for Hafed, did not require such advertisement. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the absence of any arguments or evidence from the assessee to challenge the disallowance.

4. Addition of Rs. 37,359 on account of mill expenses:
The AO treated Rs. 41,510 incurred on repair of floor tiles and a new shed for labor quarters as capital expenditure, allowing depreciation of Rs. 4,151 and resulting in an addition of Rs. 37,359. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order due to the lack of arguments or material from the assessee.

Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed, with all additions confirmed by the Tribunal.