9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[(CIT(A)] is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in making addition of ₹ 17, 10,000/- on account of cash deposits in bank. (ii) That the above-said has been confirmed rejecting the explanation and evidences brought on record by the assessee. (iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the said addition despite the fact that an amount of ₹ 1,95,000 was withdrawn and re-deposited in the same account, as such the net cash deposit was ₹ 15,15,200/- and not ₹ 17,10,200/-. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of ₹ 50,000 made by the AO on account of trading results, without there being any basis for the same. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of ₹ 29,793/- disallowance of expenses (iii) Disallowance of deduction under chapter VI - A ₹ 49,971/- (iv) Addition on account of unexplained cash deposit ₹ 17,10,200/- 3. Ground No.2: 3.1 This ground deals with the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of ₹ 17,10,200/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash deposits. 3.2 During the course of assessment, it was observed by the AO that as per the AIR information, the assessee had made cash deposit of ₹ 17,10,200/- in its bank account. The AO has considered these deposits as unexplained deposits alleging that no explanation in respect of these deposits was offered by the assessee. 3.3 During the course of appellate proceedings the assessee filed various documentary evidences in support of its contention along with an application under Rule 46A. The details filed by the assessee along with Rule 46A application were as follows: (i) Balance sheet and Profit and Loss account of assessee (PB 5- 6) (ii) Copy of cash book for the period 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007 (PB 7-18) (iii) Copy of bank book of Oriental Bank of Commerce for the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... funds of the subscriptions made from the deposits. Thus, by aggregating all deposits, they tend to get taxed twice which is against the principles of taxation the decisions cited by the Id. counsel lend support to the case of the assessee and hence we decline to interfere with the decision of the CIT(A). 3.10 The Hon'ble ITAT has also considered the following judgments while deciding the case in favour of the assessee: G. Venkatareddy Co. vs. Dy. CIT (2001) 73 TTJ (Hyd.) 401 S.R. Enterprise vs. ITO (2002) 77 TT J (Ahd.) 69 Addl. CIT vs. Chetan Dass (1975) 99 ITR 46 (Del) ~ CIT vs. Neemar Ram Bandhu Ram(1979) 11 CTR (All) 253: (1980) 122 ITR 68 (All) 3.11 Therefore, in view of the above judgments, the addition, if any, cannot in any way exceed the peak credit appearing in the books of accounts of the assessee. 4. Ground No.3 and 4: 4.1 These grounds deal with the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the adhoc additions made by the AO. 4.2 The AO has made addition of ₹ 50,OOO/- on account of trading results declared by the assessee, alleging that no documentary evidences were filed by the assessee in support ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not been applied it indicates that these are also small amounts below the prescribed limit u/s. 40A(3). Since the accounts of the assessee are audited and no specific instance has been brought on record by the Assessing Officer as to which is the expenditure which according to him is not fully supported with vouchers, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) deleting the ad hoc disallowance made on the basis of presumptions and guesswork. We accordingly uphold the same. The grounds by the Revenue are accordingly dismissed. Devji Nenshi Palani vs: ITO, ITA No. 6519/Mum/2009, AY 2006-07 dated 29.10.2010 . Nitin Sales Corpn. 212 Taxation 49 (Del), ITA No. 1809/Del/2005 dt. 11.7.2008 Ground No.5: This ground 'deals with the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of ₹ 49,971/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of deduction under Chapter VI - A claimed by the assessee in the return of income. In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that the said deduction has been claimed by the assessee on account of the L1C premium and the Tuition Fees paid during the year under consideration. The AO has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition in dispute and allow the ground no. 2 raised by the Assessee. 9. With regard to ground no. 3 4 are concerned, I find that the AO has made addition of ₹ 50,000/- on account of trading results declared by the assessee, alleging that no documentary evidences were filed by the assessee in support of the trading results declared in the return of income. I find that it is a settled law that in the absence of any specific finding, the adhoc additions made by the AO cannot be sustained, hence, I delete the addition in dispute and allow the ground nos. 3 4 raised by the assessee. My view is fully supported by the following decisions:- - ACIT vs. Amtek Auto Ltd. 112 TTJ 455 - DCIT vs. S. Yash B. Johar. ITA No. 2612/Mum/2008, AY 2004-05 dated 5.5.2010. 10. With regard to ground No. 5 relating to addition of ₹ 49,971/- is concerned, I find that the AO made the addition on account of disallowance of deduction under Chapter VI A claimed by the assessee in the return of income. I find that the said deduction has been claimed by the assessee on account of LIC premium and the Tuition Fees paid during the year under consideration. I also find that AO has disallo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
