9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of Rs.32,60,000/- made on account of unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. 2.1. Facts in brief as emerged from the corresponding assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the I.T.Act dated 26.12.2008 were that the assesse firm is in the business of trading in spare parts of vehicle and also running a service station for vehicles. It was noted by the AO that the assessee had received unsecured loans from the following persons and furnished partial evidence about their identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction, as follows:- Sr.No. Name of the Parties Amount Remarks 1. M/s. Jamna Organisers 25,00,000 1. Signed Confirmation filed but without stamp mark of the firm 2. Copy of bank account filed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision in CIT v. Kulwant Industries [2009] ITR 377 (P&H) wherein the addition on the basis of cash credit was deleted after genuineness was proved. It is evident from the basic ingredients of money advanced by the creditor if genuineness, source, capacity and identity was proved by the appellant firm. Therefore I allow this ground and direct the Assessing Officer to delete Rs.32,60,000/- being unsecured loans made u/s.68 of the I.T.Act." 4. We have heard both the sides. The assessee has explained that Ms. Sharmistha B. Naik was a partner in M/s.Jamna Organizers having a capital of Rs.35,40,000/- and advanced a loan of Rs.3,80,000/-. She has furnished confirmation letter along with the Bank statement. She has also furnished her income ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpenditure were claimed, such as, painting and colour/denting and welding, etc.
According to AO, the expenditure was excessive, hence 10% of the same, i.e. Rs.56,580/- was disallowed. The matter was carried before the first appellate authority who has restricted the disallowance to 5%. After considering the nature of business and the submissions made before the lower authorities, we are of the considered view that the disallowance as also the part-relief granted by ld. CIT(A) was purely a matter of estimation, therefore no legal adjudication is needed. We are not inclined to interfere with the view taken by ld. CIT(A). Resultantly, this ground of the Revenue is dismissed.
6. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
