9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1076X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee to furnish said details but the assessee could not furnish any such details even before CIT(A). Therefore, considering this factual position ld. CIT(A) has rightly come to the conclusion that the condition laid down u/s 36(2) of the I.T. Act has not been fulfilled. Therefore, the assessee claim of bad debts was rightly disallowed by CIT(A).Even before us no new circumstance have been brought on record in order to controvert or rebut the findings recorded by the learned CIT (A). Moreover, there is no reason for us to deviate from the findings recorded by the learned CIT (A). Therefore, we are of the considered view that the findings recorded by the learned CIT (A) are judicious and are well reasoned. Accordingly, we uphold the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /543/2009-10 for assessment year 2007-08, on the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned A.O. erred in disallowing Bad debts of ₹ 4,00,872/- and further the CIT(A) erred in confirming the said disallowance of ₹ 4,00,872/-. 2. The learned AO further erred on the facts and circumstances of the case in making additions of ₹ 94,72,889/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 and the CIT(A) further erred in confirming the said addition on appeal. 3. The learned A.O. erred in disallowing ₹ 1,05,852/- out of salary paid being in excess over last year. 4. The learned AO further erred on the facts and in the circumstances of case in making disallowance u/s40( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn by Hon ble Supreme court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector vs. Mst Katiji AIR 1987 S.C. 1353. We Condon the delay and admit the appeal for decision on merits. At the outset of arguments the ld. AR submitted that he do not want to press ground no.3 4 of the appeal therefore considering the facts that the assesee do not want to press the ground no.3 4 therefore taking into consideration the submissions made by ld. AR, the ground no.3 4 of the appeal are dismissed as not pressed. Ground No.1 4. This ground relates to making of disallowance of bad debts of ₹ 4,00,872/-. In this respect ld. AR submitted before us that the assessee has written off the amount of bad debts of ₹ 4,00,872/- in the normal course of bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the income of appellant of the year under consideration or in any earlier year. During assessment proceedings the appellant was not able to explain as to in which year the said amount claimed as bad debt was considered in the income of appellant. During appellate proceedings also the appellant was asked to furnish such details. However the appellant could not furnish such details. In the facts and circumstances, as the condition laid down u/s 36(2) has not been fulfilled. Therefore, the appellant s claim of bad debt was not allowable. The AO was justified in disallowing appellant s claim. After carefully anlaysing the afore mentioned order and after hearing the arguments of both the parties we are of the considered view that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ention towards para number 5.2 of CIT(A) order wherein a detail chart has been mentioned and it was further submitted by ld. AR that the assessee had received ₹ 18,25,000/- from Mr. Rahul Sankhe and ₹ 76,47,889/- from Mr. Shirish Sankhe as loans during the year (Total- 94,72,889/-). It was further argued that Mr. Shirish Sanke had given loan of ₹ 56 lakhs from his bank account. The said amount was repaid to the bank of ₹ 20,74,889/- being loan taken by the assessee company. It was further submitted by ld. AR that an amount of ₹ 4,25,000/- and ₹ 20,74,889/- were being shown as loans received from Mr. Rahul Sankhe and Shirish Sankhe respectively. It was pointed out by ld. AR that the amount of ₹ 14,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pearing in the books of accounts of the assessee , therefore the onus was specifically on the assessee to furnish the confirmations as well as the reconciliation of the differences. Although during the appeal proceedings before CIT(A), the assessee had tried to explain the difference by stating that due to clerical error, the amounts were posted in some different ledger account. However, the assessee s explanation of explaining the difference appeared to be an afterthought by CIT(A), As in this respect no such explanation was furnished before AO even after availing several opportunities. We have also noticed that copy of letter dated 19/11/2009 relied upon by the assessee was also not filed during appellate proceedings and even before us no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
