9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue is also devoid of any merit. Thus, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A), same is hereby upheld - Decided against revenue. - I.T.A. No.531/Ahd/2012, CO No.89/Ahd/2012 - - - Dated:- 20-8-2015 - SHRI G.D. AGARWAL AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JJ. For The Revenue : Shri Narendra Singh, Sr.DR For The Assessee : Shri S.N. Divatia, AR ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal and cross-objection by the Revenue and the Assessee respectively against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-XIV, Ahmedabad [ CIT(A) in short] dated 30/12/2011 pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. The appeal and the cross objection are taken up together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. First, we take up the appeal filed by the Revenue, i.e. ITA No.531/Ahd/2012 for AY 2008-09. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is not justified in facts and in law in restricting the addition to the extent of ₹ 3,30,150/- out of the total addition of ₹ 24,75,200/- made by the Assessing Officer u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the knowledge of the Revenue Authorities. 3.1. On the contrary, ld.counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as were made before the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the omission to include the bank account in question in the book of accounts was unintentional mistake on the part of the Accountant. He submitted that the AO failed to appreciate the fact that there was no reason to conceal the account, which is over-draft account, because the source of credit in this account will be the transfer from bank. He further submitted that the AO failed to appreciate the cash deposits made in this account were not unexplained but re-deposits out of the previous withdrawals. He further submitted that recording the transactions in the books has nothing to do with the correlating the withdrawals with the redeposit because once the account is not recorded in the books the corresponding redeposit will automatically remain unrecorded in the books. He further submitted that the AO has made addition u/s.68 as unexplained cash credit but when the transactions have not been recorded in the books there could not be addition u/s.68 wherein it is a precondition that the credit should appear in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of cash. Therefore, the total cash deposited in the bank account in excess of what was withdrawn by the appellant comes to ₹ 3,30,150/- tor which the appellant has no source to explain. The appellant in the appellate proceedings has taken contradictory plea for deposit of this cash. In earlier submission, it has been mentioned by appellant that cash of ₹ 3,50,000/- was deposited by one of the partner Shri Ashok Patel from his personal source. Subsequently he stated that appellant has taken loan from four different parties in the following manner. (i) Patel Prahladbhai Madhavdas (Rs.2,00,000) (ii) Patel Jayantibhai Tribhovandas (Rs.25,000) (iii) Patel Vikrambhai Dhulabhai (Rs.75,000) and (iv) Patel Navinbhai Somnathbhai (Rs.50,000). The appellant has also submitted the confirmation of these four parties regarding the deposit. The claim of the appellant is not acceptable as these evidences were not submitted before the A.O. and neither these were filed in the earlier stages of hearing. The evidences are not contemporary in nature as there is no evidence of loan from bank. The appellant has tried to create an evidence by showing cash loan fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 1,95,470/-. It is also submitted that the additional evidences were admitted in violation of Rules 46A of the IT Rules, 1962. The ld. Sr. DR supported the order of the AO and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition. 5.1. On the contrary, ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that during the year under appeal, assessee-firm had claimed interest expenditure of ₹ 1,95,470/- which was paid for the purpose of business. The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the interest expenditure was paid towards the interest paid to HDFC secured loan. The loan was taken for the business purposes. Further, ld.counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as were made before the ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has given finding on fact in para 4.3 of his order. 4. 3 Decision : I have carefully perused the assessment order and the submissions given by the appellant. The A.O. has made the disallowance as the appellant did not give any evidence for the utilisation of the loan for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
