2019 (7) TMI 1029 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of the differences in bank balances as per books and as per bank statements - HELD THAT - A survey operation u/sec. 133A was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 21/03/2014 and certain incriminating material was found and impounded. Consequent to the survey, the return of income filed on 21/03/2014 was selected for scrutiny manually by issuing notice u/sec. 143(2) on 17/09/2014. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO has noticed on verification of the balance sheet that the assessee has disclosed balance with the banks to the tune of ₹ 26,614/-, however, as per the statements obtained, credit balances available in the name of the assessee are of ₹ 71,323/- A0 has asked the assessee to file reconciliation, but of no avail. As such difference of (₹ 71,323 ₹ 26,614) ₹ 44,709/- is added to the total income of the assessee. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Even before us, no reconciliation statement has been filed, therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, this ground of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed. Allowance of interest claim - HELD THAT - Before us assessee has submitted that the assessee is having jewellery business also and interest paid is belonging to the jewellery business in pawn broking business. This fact was not brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer, only submitted before the ld. CIT(A) and pointed out that the ld. CIT(A) has not considered the same and confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. We find that the submissions of the assessee that the interest paid belonging to the jewellery business is only an afterthought for the reason that the assessee has not placed any material before us to show that it relates to jewellery business.We are of the opinion that no interfere is warranted in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, this ground of appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Addition treating the gold ornaments of 187 gms pledged to Union Bank of India, Mundur Branch as belonging to the appellant - HELD THAT - Veracity of assessee s contention has been examined. During the course of survey, inventory of pawn broking items was taken and the assessee is unable to attribute a particular item pledged by her with the bank to the item pledged with her by her customers. She is not able to explain the total 187 grams of gold, which items are belonging to the customers. As per the loan information furnished to the bank the assessee has categorically certified that she is the true owner of the said ornaments/jewellery that is being pledged with the bank and no prior lien or charge has been created on the said gold ornaments/jewellery. AO by considering the above certificate issued to the bank and by considering the value made by the qualified appraiser at ₹ 4,64,000/-, the same is treated as the assessee s undisclosed investment in gold ornaments and added to the total income of the assessee. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Even before us, the AR of the assessee is not able to place any material to show that the gold ornaments to the extent of 187 grams belonging to the assessee. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A). Thus, this ground of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Discrepancy in bank balances
- Disallowance of interest claim

Discrepancy in Bank Balances:
The assessee's appeal was against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax for two assessment years. The Assessing Officer had noted a discrepancy in the bank balances declared by the assessee and the actual credit balances available in the bank statements. The difference was added to the total income of the assessee. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition as the assessee failed to provide a reconciliation statement. The ITAT upheld the decision, stating that without proper documentation, there was no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

Disallowance of Interest Claim:
Regarding the interest claim issue, the Assessing Officer disallowed an interest expenditure claimed by the assessee as it was not paid in cash but credited to a creditor's account on an accrual basis. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, noting that the assessee had initially stated following a mercantile system of accounting but later claimed to follow a cash basis. The ITAT found that the interest paid was related to the pawn broking business, not the jewellery business as claimed by the assessee. As the assessee failed to provide evidence supporting this claim, the ITAT dismissed the appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.

Conclusion:
The ITAT dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee, upholding the decisions of the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer in both issues of the discrepancy in bank balances and the disallowance of the interest claim. The judgments were delivered on July 17, 2019.