9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Ahmedabad Bench A , allowing the benefit of telescopy against the addition on account of on-money received by the assessee. The above decision was rendered after relying on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah Co. vs. CIT [ 1980 (4) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] . So, in view of the above findings, there is no force in the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative and the Revenue has to fail in this ground also. As a result, we delete the additions and allow the appeal of the assessee and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. - HON'BLE HARI OM MARATHA, J.M. AND B.L. KHATRI, A.M. For the Appellant : Shailendra Bardia, Adv. For the Respondent : T.R. Chawla, Adv. ORDER: Hari Om Maratha, J.M. 1. Both these appeals pertain to same assessment year, namely, 1992-93 and arise out of a common appellate order dt. 9th Aug., 1995. So these are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of brevity and convenience. 2. The assessee is contractor and filed return of income for asst. yr. 1992-93 on 10th May, 1993. The assessee showed receipts on contract at Rs. 36,20,937 a g.p. rate of 8.28 per cent which the AO found to be on the lower sid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S/o Khangaram, Jodhpur 20,000 1,800 6. Banshiram S/o Khangaram, Jodhpur 15,000 2,250 7. Bhanwarlal S/o Ramdhan 15,000 2,250 8. Madan Singh S/o Jorawar Singh, Jodhpur 17,000 2,040 9. Om Prakash S/o Mohanlal, Balotra 25,000 2,450 10. Ramniwas S/o Daulal, Jodhpur 20,000 1,933 11. Rmswarup S/o Daulal, Jodhpur 20,000 2,000 12. Chandrakant Ghanshyam Das, Jodhpur 20,000 2,066 13. Ladhuram S/o Mohanlal, Jodhpur 20,000 1,933 14. Ratanlal S/o Daulal, Jodhpur 20,000 1,933 15. Smt. Bina Gupta w/o Ramesh Chand, Barmer 20,000 Nil 16. Smt. Sumitra Devi W/o Pukhraj Barmer 34,000 2,290 17. Smt. Ganga Devi W/o Jeevan Ram Barmer 29,000 2,080 6. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed the addition on account of cash credits and interest thereon. However, an addition of Rs. 1,83,698 was already made by the learned AO by rejecting the books of accounts and thus applying higher g.p. rate. The CIT(A) allowed reduction on the said amount of Rs. 1,83,698 out of additions on account of alleged unexplained cash credits of Rs. 3,45,000 and interest thereon of Rs. 31,497. The assessee has filed appeal against the confirmation of addition by the learned CIT(A) on account of unexplained cash credits and interest thereon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to produce some other evidence to disprove the same. We are reproducing the chart which is at p. S-4 for ready reference: S. No. Name of depositor Documents filed to prove genuineness of cash credit Whether produced before AO and examined by him P.A. No./GIR No. 1. Smt. Bhiki Devi, W/o Ram Prasad, Barmer Affidavit (p. 35 No. of PB) As 68 years old rural lady keeping parda - 2. Smt. Kaushalya Devi W/o Anantram, Barmer. Affidavit (p. 36 No. of PB) As rural lady keeping parda - 3. Danaram, S/o Dolaram, Jodhpur Affidavit Page No 37 of PB) D-1081/W-3/Jodhpur 4. Shersingh S/o Guide Singh Jodhpur Affidavit and assessment order for asst. yr. 1989-90 (pp. 38 39 of PB) S-1894/W-3/Jodhpur 5. Bhiyaram S/o Khangaram, Jodhpur Affidavit, return No ack. For asst. yr. 1991-92 and assessment order for asst. yr. 1990-91 B-1190/W-3/Jodhpur 6. Banshiram S/o Khangaram, Jodhpur Affidavit, return No ack. For asst. yr. 1991-92 and assessment order for asst. yr. 1990-91 B-1189/W-3/Jodhpur 7. Bhanwarlal S/o Ramdhan Affidavit and assessment order for asst. yr. 1990-91 (pp. 46 47 of PB) No B-1187/W-3/Jodhpur 8. Madan Singh S/o Jorawar Singh, Jodhpur Assessment order No. for asst. yr. 1990-91 (p. 48 of PB) As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the reasons on which the AO has based his findings are negated and seem to be not correct. As is evident from the chart, some creditors were produced before the AO. Affidavits of some of them have been produced. The balance sheet of some of the creditors were produced wherein the transactions were entered into and some of the cash creditors had already died. So it was not within the reach of the assessee to produce them before the AO. Some of the creditors had filed confirmations. 11. It is clear from the records that the assessee produced before AO some of the cash ceditors including Ramswarup S/o Daulal, Jodhpur, Ratanlal S/o Daulal, Jodhpur, Shri Ramniwas S/o Daulal, Jodhpur, Smt. Sumitra Devi W/o Pukhraj Barmer, IT assessee and her balance sheet was filed which confirms the deposits with the assessee. The other two creditors, namely, Laduram S/o Mohanlal, Jodhpur and Madan Singh S/o Jorawar Singh, Jodhpur had already died. So those could not be produced. The assessee was not aware of the addresses of Sher Singh S/o Guide Singh Jodhpur, Bhiyaram S/o Khangaram, Banshiram S/o Khangaram, Jodhpur and Bhanwar Lal S/o Ramdhan, which according to the learned authorised representativ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained, the interest thereon paid by the assessee and particularly, when this fact has been duly acknowledged by cash creditors, the additions on this count amounting to Rs. 31,947 is also not justified. The Department has not disputed the details of interest paid to the creditors placed before the AO which is enclosed at p. 73 of PB and to substantiate his arguments, the learned authorised representative has submitted that even in case the AO had to disallow the interest, it should have been restricted to Rs. 3.54 lakhs only. So, according to the learned authorised representative, this shows that the AO had worked out arbitrarily while making the addition. So, any such addition is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 15. We draw support from the following decisions relied by the learned authorised representative. (a) In Asstt. CIT vs. India Tyre House (2001) 72 TTJ (Gau) 316, it has been held that the addition made by the AO solely on the ground that the creditors were not produced before her and thus the onus of proving the genuineness of the loan was not proved, is legally tenable. (b) In CIT vs. Heeralal Chaganlal Tank (2002) 176 CTR (Raj) 495 : (2002) 257 ITR 281 (Raj) it has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
