9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded against revenue Addition for difference in capital account - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Learned CIT(A) had directed the AO to verify whether the opening balance as on 01-04-2008 was the same as the closing balance as on 31-03-2008. The direction was to verify the claim and allow it, if found correct. We do not find any reason to interfere with such direction - Decided against revenue Additions made for unsecured loans - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Assesese in his reply to a question raised during the course of his examination had stated that he was not having any confirmation from the loan creditors. The CIT(A) had given relief to the assessee with a finding that the Pan Nos. of the creditors were avai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land would not be sufficient to accept a claim of agricultural income. However, this argument can be considered only where the agricultural income claimed is of a higher order. It is admitted position that the holding of the assessee was at Sangli, which is a rich sugar belt area in Devanagar. Assessee had also given the details of the agricultural crops which are being raised by it. In such circumstances, on a preponderance of probability, the CIT(A) had allowed the claim. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). - Decided against revenue - ITA No.1275(B)/2013 - - - Dated:- 8-10-2015 - SMT ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Revenue by : Dr. P.K.Srih ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest as well as salary were disallowed. 4. Assessee moved in appeal before the CIT(A) and submitted that in the return filed for the impugned assessment year, it had declared the method of accounting as mercantile. Therefore, as per the assessee merely based on an oral statement the claim ought not have been disallowed. Learned CIT(A) was appreciative of this. He deleted the addition. 5. Now before us, learned DR strongly assailing the order of the CIT(A) submitted that in cash system of accounting outstanding expenditure could not be claimed. 6. Per contra, learned AR submitted that a similar issue had come up before this Tribunal in the case of assessee s brother Shri Santhosh Jadhav, which was also subject to a similar asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the closing balance as on 31-03-2008. The direction was to verify the claim and allow it, if found correct. We do not find any reason to interfere with such direction. Ground no.2 of the revenue stands dismissed. 11. Vide its ground no.3 grievance raised by the revenue is that learned CIT(A)deleted additions made by the AO, for unsecured loans. AO had found that assessee had shown unsecured loans from the following family members; Sl.No Name Amount(Rs.) 1 Smt Smita Jadhav 6,00,000 2 Smt Sheela Jadhav 6,00,000 3 Smt Shakuntala Jadhav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... because the creditors were assessed by the same AO, would not be a reason to say that assessee had no duty to furnish a confirmation letter from the creditors. Confirmation letters can also throw light on the nature of the underlying transactions. We are of the opinion, that the issue requires a fresh look by the AO. We therefore, set aside the orders of the lower authorities in this regard and remit the issue regarding the addition for unsecured loans back to the file of the AO for consideration afresh in accordance with law. Ground no.3 of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 15. Vide its ground no.4 grievance of the revenue is that relief was given by CIT(A) even for admitted drawings. AO had estimated assessee s drawings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
