Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 1222 - AT - Income TaxNet profit estimation - Failure on the part of the assessee to include the net profit of the post survey period - CIT- A deleted the addition - HELD THAT - Assessing Officer has not disturbed the trading results declared by the assessee and he has simply proved that profit after 7.9.2006 to 31.3.2007 as per books was Rs. 10, 75, 832/- in addition to surrendered income. In our opinion the Assessing Officer has rightly added this amount to the income of the assessee - CIT(A) has made general observations and has not bothered to verify the survey folder to see whether any incriminating material was found or not and simply allowed the relief by observing that books of account and discrepancies were not discussed during the survey. In our opinion this cannot be the reason for giving relief without referring to the statement recorded during survey which clearly shows that incriminating material was found. Therefore we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and restore that of Assessing Officer. Disallowance of the interest on debit balance of the partners - as per CIT-A proportionate interest has to be disallowed. He further observed that such interest has to be worked out after considering the credit balance also. He further observed that proportionate profit should also be credited - HELD THAT - CIT(A) has rightly observed that interest cannot be calculated merely on the basis of debit entries. The Ld. CIT(A) has recalculated the interest after considering the various credit entries in the partners account and also proportionate profit. We are satisfied with this conclusion and therefore uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A). Addition u/s 68 - unsecured loans from various persons - CIT-A deleted the addition - onus to prove - HELD THAT - Onus was on the assessee to prove the creditworthiness of the depositor which has not been discharged. AO after having pointed out that cash was deposited before giving loans to the assessee by almost all depositors still the CIT(A) did not scrutinize the bank account or bothered to ask the assessee to present these creditors and allowed the relief which in our opinion is not correct. As we have discussed only few accounts above while giving example but we have perused the bank account of all the parties and we find merit in one case i.e in the case of Jatinder Shah from whom loan of Rs. 1 lakh was taken. In that case a sum of Rs. 68, 645/- is stated to have been received from M/s D.K Brothers Dhuri and only an amount of Rs. 31, 500/- was deposited therefore creditworthiness in this case can be said to have been proved. In the light of the above discussion we confirm the order of Ld. CIT(A) for deleting the addition only in the case of Shri Jitender Shah for Rs. 1 lakh. His order for deleting credits in the name of other nine parties to the extent of Rs. 24 lakhs is set aside and the order of the Assessing Officer is restored to this extent. Disallowance of interest paid on unsecured loans - HELD THAT - We find that Ground No.3 has been adjudicated by us whereby loan of Rs. 1 lakh has been accepted by us from Shri Jatinder Shah and other loans have been found to be non-genuine. The interest on account of loan of Shri Jatinder Shah is of Rs. 11, 570/- only therefore we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and confirm the disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 1, 64, 340/- (Rs. 1, 75, 910 Rs. 11, 570 ) therefore this ground is partly allowed.
|