9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Genuineness of credits amounting to Rs. 6,50,000. 2. Genuineness of the expenditure claimed by the assessee. Detailed Analysis: 1. Genuineness of Credits: The first point of contention is the genuineness of credits amounting to Rs. 6,50,000. The assessee filed written confirmations from all creditors, provided their permanent account numbers, and the wards where they were assessed. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued summons to certain creditors under Section 131 but did not enforce their attendance. The AO doubted the genuineness of the credits, citing discrepancies in signatures on confirmation letters and affidavits, and the fact that repayments were made through cheques encashed by individuals connected to the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not make further attempts to verify the existence of the creditors or their financial capability to advance loans. It was held that the initial burden on the assessee was discharged regarding 18 creditors whose confirmations and affidavits were filed. However, credits from Mool Chand Mittal, Prem Chand Jain, S.K. Mohta, and Smt. Krishna Rohtagi were not satisfactorily established, resulting in a reduction of the addition to Rs. 1,25,000. 2. Genuineness of Expenditure: The second point concerns the genuineness of the expenditure claimed by the assessee for development activities on the land. - Well Construction: The assessee claimed Rs. 1,18,900 for constructing a well. The well was found at the spot during the AO's visit, but the AO doubted its construction by the assessee. The Tribunal held that the existence of the well and the vouchers produced satisfactorily established the expenditure. - Building Construction: The assessee claimed Rs. 38,112 for constructing a building, which the AO estimated at Rs. 20,000. The Tribunal allowed the estimated cost of Rs. 20,000 as a deduction. - Boundary Marking: The assessee claimed Rs. 20,686 for boundary marking, supported by vouchers for materials and labor payments. The AO did not specifically discuss this expenditure. The Tribunal accepted the claim. - Land Levelling: The assessee claimed Rs. 1,46,455 for levelling the land, supported by internal vouchers. The AO found no visible evidence of this activity. The Tribunal held that the expenditure was satisfactorily established. - Compensation to Jhugi Dwellers: The assessee claimed Rs. 2,93,100 in FY 1985-86 and Rs. 15,000 in FY 1986-87 for compensation to jhugi dwellers. The AO disallowed this expenditure due to the absence of jhugi signs and non-production of recipients. The Tribunal allowed Rs. 1,94,900 based on internal vouchers and receipts. - Brokerage: The assessee claimed Rs. 20,000 for brokerage, which was disallowed due to lack of supporting material. - Interest on Loans: The assessee claimed interest of Rs. 37,234 in FY 1985-86 and Rs. 26,000 in FY 1986-87 on loans. The AO disallowed the interest, citing advances to sister concerns. The Tribunal allowed interest on loans that were proved genuine. - Miscellaneous Expenditure: The AO allowed Rs. 4,550, and no grievance was raised by the assessee. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's contention that the expenditure was shown merely to reduce profit and disallowed the plea under Section 40A(3) as it was not invoked by the AO or CIT(A). The appeals were partly allowed, and the AO was directed to recompute the profit from the sale of land in light of the Tribunal's decision on various expenditure items.
|
