9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1751X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ness since long. The assessee also requested the Assessing Officer to issue summons to depositor but he did not act on the request of the assessee. All these facts cumulatively show that the assessee was able to discharge the onus placed upon it in terms of section 68 - Decided against revenue Addition made on account of receipts not recorded in the books of accounts - Held that:- CIT(A) has rightly granted part relief to the assessee as both service tax and escort charges were shown separately in the profit and loss account on net basis. The learned DR failed to controvert the findings of the learned CIT(A). We, therefore, sustain the same. Addition on account of disallowance out of certain expenses on the basis of discrepancies foun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rove the creditworthiness of the lender. Where there is no reason why the cash credit should not be accepted as genuine. The addition of cash credit is bad in law. 3. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that Mrs. Purnima Tiwari has advanced unsecured loan of ₹ 15 lakhs by account payee cheques. She is assessed to tax since 1987-88. During the assessment as well as in appeal proceedings, the documents relating to the creditor Mrs. Purnima Tiwari like confirmation, PAN Card, copy of ITR, computation of income, capital account and balance sheet and also the letter from the depositor to explain the source of deposit were filed. Copy of the bank statement, ledger account of the assessee in her (creditor) books of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cheques. She has issued the cheques to the assessee. The depositor herself is engaged in the business and having sufficient cash balance in hand as on 31st March, 2010. All these facts have not been properly appreciated by the revenue authorities and he submitted that the assessee has paid interest of ₹ 54,575/- and deducted TDS of ₹ 5458/- which further establish the genuineness of the transaction. The assessee requested the Assessing Officer to issue summons u/s 131 of the Act to verify the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor but the Assessing Officer did not act on the assessee s request. Finally the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has discharged his onus casted u/s 68 of the Act. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the addition of ₹ 50,58,257/- made on account of receipts not recorded in the books of accounts. 7. Before us it was submitted that the Assessing Officer s contention regarding not recording the receipts of ₹ 50,58,257/- in the books of accounts is completely wrong. The assessee furnished complete details and explained the same also. The Assessing Officer could have verified the same from the books of accounts produced before him. The Assessing Officer never asked the assessee to reconcile or to explain any difference in the receipt from Form No. 26AS and hurriedly made the addition. The learned CIT(A) verified the record and made appropriate order. The learned CIT(A) has granted relief by holding as under :- 4. I have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... andling charge written back transportation charges written back is also furnished. Appellant has itself admitted an unexplained difference of ₹ 60,714/- in the figures of sales which aas per books of accounts are ₹ 5,39,93,738/- as per form no. 26AS they are ₹ 5,40,54,452/-. Hence out of addition of ₹ 51,18,971/- only addition ofRs.60,714/- is sustained balance addition is deleted. As a result Ground. No. 1 of appeal is partly allowed. 8. After hearing both the sides, we find that the learned CIT(A) has rightly granted part relief to the assessee as both service tax and escort charges were shown separately in the profit and loss account on net basis. The learned DR failed to controvert the findings of the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ks of accounts of appellant wereduly audited A.O. failed to find any defects in detailed vouchers maintained by appellant, hence adhoc disallowance as percentage of such expenses is not at all justified the disallowance of ₹ 2,20,775/- and s.15,79,120/- out of such expenses, is hereby deleted. Ground No. 3 of appeal is allowed. 11. The learned CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee on the ground that the vouchers prepared by computers and hand-writing and the entries made therein were narrative. The learned DR failed to controvert the findings of the learned CIT(A) with any positive evidence contrary to that. Considering all these facts, we sustain the order of the learned CIT(A) and dismiss this ground. 12. Since Ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
