9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 568 - AT - Income TaxAddition towards unsecured loans - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - The Revenue has assailed the amount of ₹ 1,11,111/- received by the assessee from Smt. Bharti B. Pawar and ₹ 4,78,000/- received from Shri Uttamrao Jadhav, HUF. We do not find any infirmity in the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting these amounts as the assessee has been able to prove the source as well as creditworthiness of the persons for advancing the said loan amounts. The ld. DR has not been able to controvert the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the aforesaid amounts. - Decided in favour of assessee Addition on Unaccounted Advances - Held that - We find that the affidavits filed by the assessee were without corroborative evidence and the assessee has not been able to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. The assessee has not been able to show from records the genuineness of the transactions even before us. In the absence of corroborative evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in confirming the addition - Decided against assessee Difference in Gold Stock - Held that - We are of the considered view that some allowance has to be given for variation in stock of gold on account of use of gold in manufacturing of diamond studded jewellery. Accordingly, we delete 40% of the addition on account of variation caused by use of gold in manufacturing of diamond studded jewellery. Accordingly, we confirm the addition to the extent of 60% made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). - Decided partly in favour of assessee Difference in stock of Silver - Held that - AR has raised similar plea as was raised in case of difference in stock of gold. For the similar reasons, we restrict the addition to the extent of 60% made by the authorities below - Decided partly in favour of assessee Addition of 50% of donations - Held that - Assessing Officer made addition of 50% of donations made. Before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) it was submitted that during the year, the assessee has given donation of ₹ 5,000/- to the School. Inadvertently advertising expenses of ₹ 3,000/- paid to Manthan Publications was included under the head Donations . Thus, the actual donation is only ₹ 5,000/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) made addition of the entire donation amount. We are of the considered view that the donation has been made by the assessee to a school for education, which is a charitable activity. Accordingly, we delete the addition of ₹ 5,000/- and allow this ground of appeal. Addition on account of cash purchases - Held that - The Assessing Officer has taken the yearend total of cash purchases as ₹ 7,06,070/- once again as a separate item of cash purchase. The silver ingots purchased at Kalbadevi by cash amounting to ₹ 1,89,343/- on 14.08.2002 stands repeated at least thrice instead of as a single transaction. Similarly, silver tukda payments made in cash amounting to ₹ 1,95,270/- paid on 17.08.2002 have been duplicated in Annexure 3 as well as 6. The last 4 items in annexure 3 (R. Nos. 250, 321, 335 & 441) have been supposedly taken as cash purchases, but the appellant has clarified that the amounts represent cash deposited into the Karad Urban Co-operative Bank account and are not cash purchases. This has been verified to be correct from the copy of the Karad Urban Co-operative Bank account filed before me. Consequently, taking into my factual findings and the remand report of the Assessing Officer, the addition that stands confirmed is ₹ 1,11,583/- (20% of 9,57,913). - Decided in favour of assessee in part Addition u/s. 40A(3) - CIT(A) deleted part addition - Held that - Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has observed in his order that the assessee has not been able to show compelling reasons for making cash payments vide receipt no. 247 dated 21.10.2002 for ₹ 23,855/-, receipt no. 232 dated 20.11.2002 for ₹ 21,375/- and receipt no. 452 dated 31.03.2002 for ₹ 62,500/- aggregating to ₹ 1,07,730/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) disallowed 20% of the said amount under the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. The ld. AR has not been able to justify cash payments of ₹ 1,07,730/-. Accordingly, we uphold the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this ground and dismiss this ground of appeal of the assessee. - Decided against assessee Addition of cash deposit - CIT(A) deleted part addition - Held that - the total cash deposits found representing sale proceeds of jewellery inclusive of this amount in ₹ 4,27,100/-, which is found to be accounted for in the bifurcation submitted to the Assessing Officer regarding cash sales of jewellery, amounting to ₹ 11,24,308/-. So far as cash deposits relating to sale of agricultural produce is concerned, ever if we consider the amount of ₹ 7,45,630/- as cash received on this account as per para 19.2 supra, the total cash deposits from sale of agriculture produce (inclusive of ₹ 3,85,000/- above) comes to ₹ 11,30,630/- Since the gross agricultural income, as per the appellant s books, and as accepted by the Assessing Officer is ₹ 11,00,000/-, what survives for addition is a sum of ₹ 30,630/-. - Decided partly in favour of assessee Unexplained Investment in flat at Dadar, Mumbai - Held that - Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the remaining amount of ₹ 13,00,000/- on the presumption that the Assessing Officer has not brought anything on record to show that the assessee was not having sufficient own funds to pay the balance purchase consideration. We do not find any error in the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the remaining amount of ₹ 13,00,000/-. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing diamond studded jewellery since 1993. The assessee must be having some savings and own funds for investment in flat. - Decided against revenue Addition made on account of commission paid to selling agents - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of assessee on the ground that it is supported by self made vouchers. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in his order has given a categoric finding that on 03.01.2006 the assessee had furnished commission credit memos in the form of Paper Book before the Assessing Officer. Since the assessee is not maintaining any show room, payment of commission on sales made through agent is justified. The ld. DR has not been able to controvert the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). We do not find any error in the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the addition on account of payment of commission to selling agent. - Decided against revenue Addition made on account of unexplained investment in purchase of NSC - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - During the proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee explained that the interest income of ₹ 25,375/- includes interest on investment in ICICI deposits of ₹ 10,000/-, ICICI Safety Bonds of ₹ 20,000/-, NSC of ₹ 10,000/- and PPF account ₹ 1,51,835/-. In the Profit & Loss Account, it was inadvertently mentioned as interest on NSCs, whereas the interest was from aforesaid various deposits. The explanation furnished by the assessee was found genuine by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and accordingly, the addition of ₹ 2,50,000/- was deleted. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has deleted the addition after examination of documents on record. We do not find any error in deleting the aforesaid addition by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The ld. DR has not been able to controvert the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - Decided against revenue Unexplained cash credit in the bank accounts - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has deleted the additions after verification of the bank account and the transactions. The Assessing Officer had made addition in an arbitrary and unjustified manner without verifying the bank accounts of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has observed in his order that the Assessing Officer has deliberately ignored the information furnished by the assessee. The exercise which Assessing Officer has failed to perform has been done by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Thus, in view of factual findings given by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after examination of bank accounts and other relevant documents, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the additions in respect of unexplained cash credit in the bank accounts of the assessee.- Decided against revenue
Issues Involved:
1. Unsecured Loans 2. Unaccounted Advances 3. Difference in Gold Stock 4. Difference in Stock of Silver 5. Donations 6. Cash Purchases 7. Cash Payments 8. Cash Deposits 9. Unexplained Investment in Flat at Dadar, Mumbai 10. Payment of Commission 11. Investment in NSC 12. Unexplained Cash Deposits in Various Bank Accounts Detailed Analysis: Unsecured Loans: The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 22,54,486/- towards unsecured loans as they were not proved by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) granted relief for Rs. 10,68,375/- as they were brought forward loans from earlier years and Rs. 1,11,111/- from Smt. Bharti B. Pawar was proved. Relief of Rs. 4,78,000/- was given for loans from Shri Uttamrao H. Jadhav, HUF. The Tribunal further deleted Rs. 1,90,000/- based on the banking transactions and upheld the deletion of Rs. 5,89,111/- by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as the assessee proved the source and creditworthiness. Unaccounted Advances: The AO added Rs. 28,24,278/- for unaccounted advances, reduced to Rs. 24,23,278/- by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The affidavits provided by the assessee were rejected due to lack of corroborative evidence. The Tribunal upheld the addition, citing the inability of the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. Difference in Gold Stock: The AO added Rs. 2,62,752/- for the difference in gold stock, upheld entirely by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal considered the use of gold in manufacturing diamond-studded jewelry and deleted 40% of the addition, confirming 60%. Difference in Stock of Silver: Similar to the gold stock issue, the Tribunal restricted the addition to 60% of the difference in silver stock, partly accepting the assessee's appeal. Donations: The AO added Rs. 4,000/- for donations, increased to Rs. 5,000/- by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal deleted the addition, considering the donation to a school for education as a charitable activity. Cash Purchases: The AO added Rs. 4,84,028/- for cash purchases, restricted to Rs. 1,11,583/- by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal upheld the findings, noting the lack of cogent evidence from the assessee and no error in the deletion of Rs. 3,70,347/- by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Cash Payments: The AO added Rs. 3,92,393/- under section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, reduced to Rs. 21,546/- by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal upheld the addition, as the assessee failed to justify the cash payments. Cash Deposits: The AO added Rs. 16,21,900/- for cash deposits, reduced to Rs. 30,630/- by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal upheld the deletion of Rs. 15,91,270/- as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found the deposits explained through records. Unexplained Investment in Flat at Dadar, Mumbai: The AO added Rs. 52,27,096/- for investment in a flat, reduced by Rs. 13,00,000/- by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal upheld the deletion, noting the sufficient own funds and loans shown by the assessee. Payment of Commission: The AO disallowed Rs. 85,812/- for commission paid to selling agents, which was deleted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal upheld the deletion, acknowledging the business practice of paying commission and the evidence provided. Investment in NSC: The AO added Rs. 2,50,000/- for unexplained NSC investment, deleted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) after examining the interest income sources. The Tribunal upheld the deletion, finding the explanation genuine. Unexplained Cash Deposits in Various Bank Accounts: The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted various additions for unexplained cash deposits, totaling Rs. 15,95,630/-, Rs. 35,12,762/-, Rs. 2,68,900/-, and Rs. 3,22,000/-, after verifying bank accounts and transactions. The Tribunal upheld these deletions, noting the arbitrary and unjustified manner of the AO's additions and the thorough verification by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Conclusion: The appeal of the assessee is partly accepted, and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
|
