9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of ₹ 5,00,000/- is upheld in the hands of the assessee. - Decided against assessee Disallowance of transport charges - Held that:- Since the assessee did not file details of the expenses, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee as to why reasonable disallowance should not be made on this account. During course of hearing, CA & AR of the assessee stated that only 5% disallowance would be accepted. However, the Assessing Officer made ad-hoc addition by disallowing 7.5% of the total lorry hire expenses and made addition. The CIT(A) restricted the same to 5% of the total expenses against which the assessee is in appeal. There is no merit in the plea of the assessee in this regard wherein the Ld. AR of the assessee had already accepted 5% of disallowance out of total lorry hire charges paid.- Decided against assessee Addition on account of cash introduced in the firm’s account by the partners - Held that:- As in the case of Jagatsingh Pratapsingh Jadhav, addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- on the same ground is upheld and accordingly, no other addition on the same transaction is to be made in the hands of the firm and the same is deleted. In respect of other partner, Shri Ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik is not justified in confirming the disallowance to the extent of ₹ 3,00,717/- out of the total transport payments as against the disallowance made by the A.O at ₹ 4,51,076/- 4) On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik is not justified in confirming the disallowance of expenses to the extent of ₹ 22,924/- out of total expenses on vehicles and telephone as against the disallowance made by the A.O at ₹ 76,413/- 5) The appellant craves for addition to; deletion, alteration, and modification change any of the above grounds of appeals. 4. The first issue raised by the assessee in the present appeal is against reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Act. 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee had filed return of income declaring total income of ₹ 4,65,043/-. The said return of income was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. The Assessing Officer received information from ACIT, Central Circle, Nashik that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ries from the assessee but no explanation on cash credits detected in the books of account was filed. The assessee explained that the cash deposit by him in the accounts had already been explained. However, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has failed to furnish the sources of the said cash and hence, addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- was made in the hands of the assessee. The hence, addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- was made in the hands of the assessee. The said addition was confirmed by the CIT(A). Similarly, in the case of other partner, Shri Arun Chachad, addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- was made and the appeal against the same is pending before CIT(A). The Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 11,00,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) reduced the addition to ₹ 5,00,000/- holding that sum of ₹ 6,00,000/- related to the assessment year 2003-04 and suitable action if deemed fit was to be taken in the said year. The assessee is in appeal against the said addition of ₹ 5,00,000/-. 9. The Ld. AR for the assessee made elaborate submission as to why the addition should not be made and filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) restricted the same to 5% of the total expenses against which the assessee is in appeal. There is no merit in the plea of the assessee in this regard wherein the Ld. AR of the assessee had already accepted 5% of disallowance out of total lorry hire charges paid. Upholding the order of CIT(A), ground No. 3 raised by the assessee in appeal is dismissed. 12. The issue raised in the ground No. 4 of appeal is against disallowance out of total expenses on vehicles and telephone expenses to the tune of ₹ 22,924/-. The Assessing Officer had disallowed 1/3rd of the expenditure of car and telephone totaling ₹ 76,413/-. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 10% of the total expenses i.e ₹ 22,924/-. There is no merit in the ground of appeal No. 4 raised by assessee and hence, the same is dismissed. 13. The assessee in ITA No. 676/PUN/2015 has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1) On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik is not justified in confirming the disallowance to the extent of ₹ 2,26,430 out of total transport payments as against the disallowance made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 is not justified in confirming disallowance of ₹ 11,235/- on account of office expenses and vehicle expenses ignoring the reasonability compared to the nature and volume of the business. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 is further not justified in not adjudicating the issue on merit. 5) On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 is not justified in directing the AO to take further action against the appellant for A.Y 2003-04 to verify the amount credited in the bank account of the appellant amounting to ₹ 6,00,000/- during the financial year relevant to the A.Y. 2003-04. the financial year relevant to the A.Y. 2003-04. 6) The appellant craves for addition to; deletion, alteration, and modification change any of the above grounds of appeals. 16. The grounds of appeal No. 1 and 5 raised by the assessee are not pressed and hence, the same are dismissed as not pressed. 17. The issue raised in ground No. 2 is against the addition of ₹ 10,00,000/ on account of cash introduced in the firm s account by the partners. In ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
