9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 137 - AT - Income TaxAddition made on account of interest paid to others - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that - Copy of balance sheet and profit and loss account submitted by the assessee clearly shows that loans and interest were appearing as liability as on 31.03.2005 at ₹ 18,50,000/- which stands tallied with the bank accounts which was also placed before the authorities below. The ld. DR was unable to controvert the submissions of the assessee in this regard, therefore, we find no fault in the order of the CIT (A) - Decided in favour of assessee. Expenses claimed under the head electricity expenses, generator expenses, repair and maintenance for personal use - CIT(A) reducing the addition of ₹ 43,301/- to ₹ 22,460/- being 1/4th of the expenditure - Held that - There are separate meters for residential portion and the Eye Hospital portion. Therefore, there was no scope for any disallowance out of the electricity expenses. Further, in respect of generator expenses, repair and maintenance expenses, we find that the CIT (A) has sustained 1/4th of the addition for which assessee is not in appeal. In view of these facts, we find no fault in the order of the CIT (A)- Decided in favour of assessee. Purchase of Retinal Camera - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - The assessee filed the evidence that M/s. Eye Tech Industries has not received the payment against the camera and the e-message has been submitted in this regard. The revenue is not able to prove that emessage received from M/s. Eye Tech Industries was not genuine. The revenue is also failed to prove that the apparent is not the real and the onus is on the party who claims it to be so.Find no fault in the order of the CIT (A)- Decided in favour of assessee. Addition to income - rejecting the books of account on the basis of the seized documents - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - The documents are not having any heading and it do not mention any period for which it pertains to. The revenue has not related the name of the person for whom the various figures appearing therein, therefore, no addition can be made on the basis of such bald and cryptic document. The Assessing Officer has gone to reject the books of account as he cannot accept the results declared by the assessee but, in our considered view, books of account cannot be rejected summarily without any basis.- Decided in favour of assessee. Purchase of property - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - No evidence found during the search operation which could suggest that the property in question was purchased for ₹ 79,00,000/- instead of ₹ 49,00,000/-. Further, there is no evidence that assessee has paid any on money on purchase of this property. Assessee s husband made a statement in the mid-night during the search operation that ₹ 30 lacs was paid in cash, however, the same was retracted by way of an affidavit filed before the DGIT (Inv.), Lucknow. Further, there is no corroborative evidence on the record found and seized during the search operation. We also get strength from the Circular No.286/2/2003-I.e. (Inv.) dated 10.03.2003 where such disclosers were held to be of no consequence without corroborative documents. Find no fault in the order of the CIT (A)- Decided in favour of assessee. Unexplained cash credits u/s 69 - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - corpus of Trilok Prakash Agarwal HUF came to be in existence in 1982 itself. Therefore, it is justified to be assessed income of Trilok Prakash Agarwal HUF. As far as, the source of investment of ₹ 10,90,000/- is concerned, we find that investment in KVPs/NSCs were made as early as in 1998 as these were renewed regularly thereafter. The bank accounts with Indraprastha Bank Limited was found during the search and these accounts were pertained to Trilok Prakash Agarwal HUF. The investments were made in the name of coparceners and the members of HUF. The source of investment of KVPs for the financial year 2004-05 was out of maturity and re-maturity of earlier investments.The assessee has able to demonstrate that he was having ₹ 10,70,000/- with him which was invested during the year. Find no fault in the order of the CIT (A)- Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of interest paid to others. 2. Reduction of expenses claimed for personal use. 3. Deletion of addition made on account of purchase of Retinal Camera. 4. Deletion of addition after rejecting books of accounts. 5. Deletion of addition of interest paid to others. 6. Deletion of addition made on account of purchase of property. 7. Deletion of addition of unexplained cash credits. Analysis: Issue 1: Addition of interest paid to others The Assessing Officer disallowed interest of Rs. 66,000 paid to others, citing lack of evidence in the accounts submitted by the assessee. However, the ITAT found that the balance sheet and profit and loss account submitted by the assessee supported the interest payments, which were also reflected in the bank accounts. As the revenue failed to counter these submissions, the ITAT upheld the CIT (A)'s decision to delete the addition. Issue 2: Reduction of expenses claimed for personal use The Assessing Officer disallowed 1/4th of expenses claimed for electricity, generator, repair, and maintenance for personal use, as the assessee and her family resided in the same premises as the Eye Hospital. However, the ITAT noted separate meters for residential and hospital portions, concluding that there was no basis for disallowance of electricity expenses. The CIT (A)'s decision to sustain 1/4th of the addition for other expenses was upheld by the ITAT. Issue 3: Deletion of addition made on account of purchase of Retinal Camera The ITAT considered the purchase of a Retinal Camera, with the revenue contending that the purchase was from undisclosed income. The assessee provided evidence that the payment was not made, and the ITAT found the revenue unable to disprove the genuineness of the evidence presented. Consequently, the ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal on this ground. Issue 4: Deletion of addition after rejecting books of accounts The ITAT reviewed an addition of Rs. 4,74,240 made after rejecting the books of accounts based on seized documents. It found the documents lacked specificity and failed to establish a basis for the addition. The ITAT emphasized that accounts cannot be rejected without valid reasons, such as non-compliance with accounting standards. Therefore, the ITAT upheld the CIT (A)'s decision to delete the addition. Issue 5: Deletion of addition of interest paid to others (second instance) In a separate appeal, the ITAT addressed the deletion of an addition of interest paid to others. The ITAT found that the interest payments were supported by the books of accounts and bank statements, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal on this ground. Issue 6: Deletion of addition made on account of purchase of property The ITAT examined an addition made on account of the purchase of property, with the revenue challenging the deletion of the addition. After considering the evidence presented, including contradictory statements and lack of corroborative evidence, the ITAT upheld the CIT (A)'s decision to delete the addition. Issue 7: Deletion of addition of unexplained cash credits The ITAT reviewed the deletion of an addition of unexplained cash credits, with the revenue arguing that the assessee failed to prove the source of funds invested. However, the ITAT accepted the explanations provided by the assessee regarding the source of funds and investments, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal. In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed all three appeals filed by the revenue, upholding the decisions of the CIT (A) in each case.
|
