9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the assessee. Therefore, in our considered view, the addition u/s.68 of the Act to the income of the assessee is not warranted. - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition on account of interest on unsecured loan - Held that:- The disallowance of interest was made by the Assessing Officer as he had held that the unsecured loan as not genuine and added the same u/s.68 of the Act. As we have confirmed the order of the CIT(A) that the loan creditors are genuine, therefore, the disallowance of interest paid to the loan creditors cannot be made. Accordingly, we hold that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of interest made by the Assessing Officer - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition on low withdrawals for household expenses - Held that:- CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition on the ground that the wife of the assessee is income tax assessee who has shown withdrawal of ₹ 60,000/- for household expenses in her return of income filed. - Decided against revenue Estimating the net profit rate - Held that:- It is not in dispute that books of account of the assessee has not been rejected by the Assessing Officer before estimating the income of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment year and not during the assessment year under consideration. He observed that the carry forward cash credit balances cannot be added u/s.68 of the Act. He observed that the assessment in the that year has been completed u/s.143(3) and upon filing confirmations thAT year, the issue cannot be raked up now. He observed that as regards the loans obtained from M/s. R.K.Transport of ₹ 14,00,000/-, Shri Shekhar Sahu of ₹ 4,00,000/- and Smt. Asha Devi Lunia of ₹ 6,00,000/- aggregating to ₹ 24,00,000/-, the assessee filed Xerox copy of income tax returns of the loan creditors and, therefore, in view of the evidence produced in support of the unsecured loans and also the decisions relied in the case of (i) Ramesh Chandra Ravindra Kumar Rai vs ITO, 14 TTJ 34 (2010), (Jab); (ii) ACIT v. Heena Investment Pvt Ltd.,, 141 TTJ 772 (Jodh); (iii) CIT vs. Parmeshwar Bohara (2008) 301 ITR 404(Raj) and (iv) CIT vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd (2008) 301 ITR 384 (Del), the addition of ₹ 53,27,925/- made under section 68 of the Act cannot be sustained. 6. Ld D.R. relied on the order of the Assessing officer. 7. Ld A.R. submitted that it will be observed fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ught forward balances from earlier years, which was accepted as genuine by the Assessing Officer in an assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act. Therefore, he deleted the addition of ₹ 19,27,925/- for the reason that u/s.68 of the Act, the addition to the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit can be made where any sum is found credited in the book of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory. No error in this finding of the CIT(A) could be pointed out by ld D.R. during the course of hearing. Further, it is observed that regarding balance four loan creditors from whom loan of ₹ 24,00,000/- was taken by the assessee, the assessee filed the loan confirmations, copy of income tax returns, balance sheet, computation of income and capital account of the loan creditors. Thus, the assessee has discharged its initial burden of proving the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of loan creditors. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer has not brought any material on record to show that either the loan cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 60,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of low withdrawals for household expenses. 14. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had shown only ₹ 60,000/- as household withdrawals. He observed that the family of the assessee consisting of two adults and two children and the amount was not sufficient to meet the requirements of household expenses and, therefore, estimated the household expenses of the assessee at ₹ 1,20,000/- and made the addition of ₹ 60,000/- to the income of the assessee. 15. On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the addition of ₹ 60,000/- on the ground that the wife of the assessee is income tax assessee who has shown withdrawal of ₹ 60,000/- for household expenses in her return of income filed. 16. Ld D.R. could not point out any specific error in the findings of the CIT(A). 17. On the other hand, ld A.R. of the assessee has filed copy of balance sheet of the wife of the assessee, Smt. Chanchal Jain, placed at page 72 of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
