9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowance of shop rent & godown rent - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- The shop rent and godown rent were disallowed on the ground that no PAN or confirmation of the parties were furnished to whom these payments of rent were made. The books of account of the appellant were audited. The shops and godown were not taken on rent during the year under consideration but the same were taken on rent in A.Y. 2003-04. No such disallowance were made in earlier year. The Ld. Counsel has furnished sufficient evidence for the tenancy of the shop and godown. Such evidences were also independently filed before the Assessing Officer during remand proceedings vide letter dated 11.08.2011. After considering the evidences so filed, there is no justifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) was framed vide order dated 28/12/2010, thereby the Assessing Officer (AO in short) made addition on account of unsecured loan and interest paid thereon amounting to ₹ 8 lacs and ₹ 41,900/- respectively. The AO has also made disallowance of shop rent and godown rent of ₹ 1,14,600/- and ₹ 78,000/- respectively. Further, the AO made addition on account of unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act of ₹ 4,83,019/-. The AO also made disallowance of depreciation on shop of ₹ 1,53,290/- and other disallowance in respect of travelling expenses of ₹ 1,67,749/- and disallowan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justified in deleting the additions. He submitted that the AO noted that the assessee has received loans from Shri Vijay Manibhai Patel a sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- and from Shri Vithalbhai D.Patel a sum of ₹ 3,00,000/- also paid interest of ₹ 41,900/- to Shri Vithalbhai D.Patel. He submitted that the AO has observed that the assessee did not file requisite details to prove the creditworthiness of the depositors. He submitted that under these facts, the ld.CIT(A) ought to have confirmed the addition made by the AO. 3. 1. On the contrary, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the amount in question was received by way of cheques and routed through banking channel. He sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... depositors stands established by the affidavit, land records and the copies of bank accounts. (b) The genuineness of the transactions was also established from the fact that the deposits were received through banking channels i.e. by account payee bank drafts and not in cash. The repayments of ₹ 5,00,000/- to one depositor Shri Vijay Patel within a month or so was also by account payee cheque. (c) The creditworthiness of both the depositors is also established by furnishing confirmation of the fact of having given deposits to the assesses. The details of land holdings and the details of agricultural income were furnished in the affidavits. Copies of their bank accounts were also furnished. (ii) The Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as the same effected through banking channel. The assessee has furnished evidences of the creditworthiness of the persons from whom he has obtained loans. The Revenue has not rebutted the evidences placed by the assessee by placing any contrary material on record. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby upheld. Thus, ground No.1 of Revenue s appeal is rejected. 5. So far as ground No.2 regarding shop rent godown rent is concerned, the ld.Sr.DR placed heavy reliance on the assessment order and submitted that the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the disallowance. 5.1. On the contrary, ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the relevant evidences were placed before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly allowed. 6.1. The above finding of the ld.CIT(A) is not controverted by the ld.Sr.DR by placing any contrary material on record or pointing out any error. Therefore, we do not see any infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby upheld. Thus, ground No.2 of Revenue s appeal is dismissed. 7. Ground Nos.3 4 of Revenue s appeal are general in nature which require no independent adjudication. 8. In the result, Revenue s appeal is dismissed. 9. Now, we take up the Assessee s Cross Objection No.37/Ahd/2012 for AY 2007-08 (in ITA No.05/Ahd/2012 for AY 2008-09), wherein following grounds have been taken:- The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (A) has erred in confirming the following Addition. (1) The Learned Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
