9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Assessing Officer for want of verification of proper supporting vouchers/evidences which could not furnished by the assessee to substantiate its claim. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) - ITA No. 747/Ahd/2011 & 2354/Ahd/2011 - - - Dated:- 1-5-2017 - SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri Rushi Parekh with Shri MK Patel, ARs For The Revenue : Shri K. Madhusudan, Sr DR ORDER PER AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- These are two appeals filed by the assessee against the respective order of the CIT(A) -II, Ahmedabad dated 30.12.2010 and order of CIT(A)-II, Sruat dated 07.07.2011 for AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively. AY 2007-08 2. For AY 2007-08 the assessee has taken following grounds:- 1. That the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 20,00,000/- for unexplained cash credit u/s 68. 2. That the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of ₹ 45,368/-being interest on unexplained cash credit. 3. That the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance out of vehicles to the extent of 10% of the expenses. 4. That the CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On inquiring sister in law of the said person was found at the given address that who stated that Shri Suresh is working as low time diamond labourer in the diamond market He has no office of his own. There was no business activity or books of account found on this address. Again the said person was found to be of poor means with hardly any capacity to lend ₹ 5,00,000/- to the assessee. 4. Shri Nailesh B. Mehta. - This person was also found to be working as a diamond labourer in the diamond market without any office of his own. No books of accounts or any business activity was found at this address. His wife stated that she was not aware of the assessee or any loan advance to him by her husband. 4. Thus, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee has failed to discharge the primary onus to establish the credit worthiness of the creditor and therefore the genuineness of the transactions. The Assessing Officer accordingly treated the sum of ₹ 20 lacs as unexplained cash credit of the assessee under Section 68 of the Act and ₹ 45,358/-being interest claimed on the above amount was also disallowed and added the same to the total income of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirmed and both the grounds are rejected. 6. Further aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also gone through the paper-book filed by the ld. Counsel, which contained the detailed submissions made before the ld. Assessing Officer, copy of pass-book, reply to notice under 133(6), copy of inspector s enquiry report, copy of bank certificate etc. The ld. Counsel has also submitted that the depositors have filed the income-tax returns and their bank accounts were showing several entries including advances made by them. He further contended that the so-called enquiry conducted by the Ward Inspector was contrary to the evidence filed by the assessee and further no show-cause notice was issued to the assessee on the basis of enquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer. Assessee filed the supporting documents on 21.12.2009 and the assessment order was framed on 31.12.2009 without any further communication. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that proper oppo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. AY 2008-09 14. In this year, the assessee has raised following substantive grounds:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, as well as on the subject, the learned AO erred in making addition of ₹ 30,328/- being 20% of ₹ 1,51,639/- towards telephone, mobile and vehicle fuel expenses treating it as non-business expenditure without appreciating the facts of the case. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, as well as on the subject, the learned AO erred in making addition in respect of Interest claimed to the tune of ₹ 1,84,084/- treating it as bogus without any cogent evidence. 15. The first ground is related to disallowance made out of various expenses like telephone mobile expenses and vehicle fuel expenses. This year also, the Assessing Officer, during the course of assessment proceedings, observed that most of the vouchers related to telephone mobile expenses as well as vehicle fuel expenses are not verifiable. Therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed 20% of the total expenses claimed of ₹ 1,51,639/-, which comes to ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
