9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 23,10,000/- being the addition on account of unexplained loan on a wrong appreciation of law and without any basis substituting his own satisfaction in place of A.O.'s satisfaction that the assessee has not discharged his onus as provided u/s.68 of the I.T Act. 4. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 12,40,000/- being the addition on account of unexplained credit entry in the bank account on a wrong appreciation of law and without any basis substituting his own satisfaction in place of A.O.'s satisfaction that the assessee has not discharged his onus as provided u/s.68 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has also not pointed out any indiscrepancy which could indicate that the AO's satisfaction was based on a wrong appreciation of facts 5. In doing so, the CIT(A) has accepted additional evidences without recording proper reasons in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. 6. That the order of the Ld. CIT (A) being erroneous in law and on facts be vacated and the order of the AO be restored. 7. That the appellant craves leave to amend anyone or more of the grounds of the appeal as stated above as and when need for doing so may arise. 2. The iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere also with him, the addition of ₹ 52000/- made for alleged low withdrawal for house hold expenses is wholly unjustified, arbitrary and liable to be deleted . 5. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the withdrawal of the assessee along with his wife constituted ₹ 96,000 which was quite sufficient as against the estimate of the Assessing Officer at ₹ 1 lakh, therefore, no addition on this account was warranted. He accordingly deleted the addition of ₹ 52,000. 6. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the materials available on record. In the present case, it is noticed that the Assessing Officer estimated household expenses of the assessee at ₹ 1 lakh. The Assessing Officer while estimating the addition of ₹ 52,000 only considered the withdrawal of the assessee at ₹ 48,000 and did not take into consideration the withdrawal of ₹ 48,000 made by the wife of the assessee. Therefore, the withdrawal for household expenses for the family by the assessee and his wife was at ₹ 96,000 which appears to be reasonable against the estimate of the Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The ld. CIT(A) dealt with the issue vide para 23 of his order and held as under:- 23. I have considered the facts and documents submitted by the appellant and come to the conclusion that double addition for the same is not justified, in this case the appellant has paid the taxes on ₹ 3,00,000/- along with the interest as per explanation given by the counsel, ₹ 3 lakhs consists of ₹ 1 lakh, therefore Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition of ₹ 1,00,000/- after verification at his end also. Thus, ground No. iii(b) of appeal is allowed. 11. Now the Department is in appeal. 12. The ld. D.R. supported the order of the Assessing Officer while the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the ld. CIT(A) and strongly supported the impugned order on this issue. 13. After considering the submissions of both the parties, it appears that the same entry of ₹ 3 lakhs was added in the hands of M/s Suyash Khemka (Agarwal) Beneficiary Trust vide order dated 23.5.2008 passed u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act. The said Trust has accepted the addition of ₹ 3 lakhs which included the impugned credit entry of ₹ 1 la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he submissions made before him as mentioned in para 25 of the impugned order read as under:- Your honour may kindly note from the Grounds of Appeal summarized here in before that all the additions made by the Ld. A. O. are for alleged unexplained cash credit entry and the explanation along with documentary evidences on record: Name of the creditor P.A.No. Amount (Rs.) Evidence filed Nature of Entry Ankur Agarwal (HUF) 111/30, Nehru Nagar, Kanpur AAFHA 5718J 750000/- Confirmation Bank Statement Interest Free Loan Nidhi Agarwal 12311-F, Kalpi Road, Kanpur AAQPG 9653H 1200000/- -do- -do- Seema Jain 2A184, Azad Nagar, Kanpur ACAPJ 1794N 300000.00 -do- -do- A.R. Sons Saraf 43/50,Chowk Sarafa, Kanpur AAXP A 2919N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an aggregating to ₹ 23,10,000/- was made in respect of following parties:- 1. M/s Ankur Agarwal, HUF ₹ 750000/- 2. Smt. Nidhi Agarwal ₹ 1200000/- 3. Smt. Seema Jain ₹ 300000/- 4. M/s Agarwal Associates ₹ 60000/- On verification, it is noticed that unexplained credits in bank account aggregating to ₹ 12,40,000/- represents following details of entries:- I. ₹ 4,50,000/- + ₹ 50,000/- from M/s A.R.Sons Sarraf II. ₹ 1,00,000/- from Shri Avinash Chand Jain III. ₹ 30,000/- + ₹ 10,000/- from M/s Yog Petro Pvt. Ltd. IV. ₹ 6,00,000/- transfer entry from Bank of Baroda. In support of additional evidence filed by the assessee before your goodself, the assessee has filed confirmations from parties along with their bank accounts. These parties are M/s Ankur Agarwal, HUF, Smt. Nidhi Agarwal, Smt. Seema Jain, M/s A.R. Sons Sarraf Shri Avinash Chand Jain and M/s Yog Petro Pvt. Ltd. Information u/s 133(6) of Income Tax Act, 1961 has been gathered from the parties which are not family members of the assessee group viz. M/s Ankur Agarwral, HUF, Smt. Seema Jain, Shri Avinash Chand Jain and M/s A.R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
