Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 432 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained credits on withdrawals from firm and banks Held that - There was no transaction in the account of the appellant in UCO Bank and hence its old balance was placed along with cash and advances under the head Cash advance and UCO Bank in absence of copy of the bank account - to prove the availability of cash in hand the assessee has made a long drown process of working out cash in hand as on 31-03-2007 after taking into consideration all transactions of the year - Through this process cash in hand is worked out at ₹ 13,60,954/- in place of ₹ 13,57,269/- shown through statement of affairs and hence cash in hand and advances shown in the statement of affairs deserve to be held as proved and acceptable on facts and in law and according to the principle of accountancy. CIT(A) has made a finding that on 31.03.2007 the assessee was having total cash of ₹ 13,60,954/-; and the assessee had filed all the details in respect to his withdrawals from the account of the assessee in the firm M/s. Approve Home Developers and Withdrawal from the account of the assessee in the firm M/s. Sharda State Promoters and cash drawn from other bank accounts of the appellant as indicated in the statement - CIT(A) rightly held that the AO erred in arriving at the correct figure of cash in hand with reference to the income shown in the P & L account & aforesaid withdrawal from firms of banks the order of the CUT(A) is upheld Decided against revenue. Expenses on car Household expenses Failure to discharge onus and to prove genuineness of expenses Held that - All expenses disclosed are comparable to the earlier years - There is no material to show that there is any exorbitant increase in expenditure - The AO proceeded on assumption which is not permissible - All expenses are supported by necessary evidence which has been placed on record before AO and the revenue has not brought to our notice any material so as to show that no evidence was furnished before the AO - the nature of expenses claimed by the assessee does not warrant any addition - There is no dispute as to the existence of car and the car loan, facts of which was duly reflected in the statement of affairs, which has been accepted by the AO - depreciation of cost of car and interest on car loan are statutory deduction which must be granted to the assessee and the insurance has been paid by account payee cheques the order of the CIT(A) is upheld. In respect to the deletion of addition made on account of low withdrawal for house hold expense - the assessee along with HUF together has withdrawn ₹ 54,000/- considering the fact & circumstances of the assessee there is no reason to disagree with the order of the CIT(A) in this respect Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 13,59,347/- on account of unexplained credits. 2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 1,02,693/- on account of disallowance of expenses. 3. Deletion of addition of Rs. 1,02,000/- on account of low household withdrawals. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis 1. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 13,59,347/- on Account of Unexplained Credits The assessee, engaged in money lending, showed a net income of Rs. 85,000/- for the assessment year 2007-08. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted discrepancies in the closing balances of the assessee's assets, particularly a cash advance and bank balance totaling Rs. 13,59,347/-. The assessee claimed this amount included withdrawals from a partnership firm and old cash balances, but the AO found inconsistencies in the dates and amounts of these transactions. The AO also questioned the plausibility of the assessee holding large cash balances while simultaneously servicing significant loans. Upon appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] accepted the assessee's explanations, noting that the total funds and assets matched, and there was no evidence of undisclosed assets. The CIT(A) found the AO's calculations and assumptions flawed, particularly regarding the cash in hand and the transactions involving various bank accounts and investments. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, concluding that the AO erred in his assessment and the cash in hand was satisfactorily explained by the assessee. 2. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 1,02,693/- on Account of Disallowance of Expenses The AO disallowed expenses claimed by the assessee for car-related costs, including bank interest on a car loan, depreciation, insurance, and maintenance, due to a lack of supporting documentation. The assessee provided detailed explanations and evidence for these expenses, including bank statements and previous years' depreciation claims. The CIT(A) found the expenses reasonable and comparable to previous years, noting that the AO's disallowance was based on assumptions rather than evidence. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that the nature of the expenses did not require extensive documentation beyond what was already provided. 3. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 1,02,000/- on Account of Low Household Withdrawals The AO added Rs. 1,02,000/- to the assessee's income, alleging insufficient household withdrawals. The assessee argued that the total withdrawals by his family, including contributions from other family members and a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), amounted to Rs. 90,000/-, which was consistent with previous years. The CIT(A) accepted this explanation, noting the lack of any significant change in household expenses and the consistency of the withdrawals with historical data. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no reason to question the CIT(A)'s assessment of the household withdrawals. Conclusion The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, confirming the CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal found that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the sources of the unexplained credits, the disallowed expenses were reasonable and supported by evidence, and the household withdrawals were consistent with previous years. The order was pronounced in the open court on 04.09.2014.
|