9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1737X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neral in nature, needs no adjudication. 4. The ground no.2.1 and 2.2 of the assessee's appeals are as under: "2.1 The Ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and/or on facts in upholding the following additions/disallowances. a) Disallowance of interest Rs.26,511/- b) Unexplained investment Rs.73,340/- 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the above said additions/ disallowances." 5. These grounds of the appeal are with regard to two additions. The first addition is regarding disallowance of interest of ₹ 26,511/-. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the disallowance of interest was wrongly made as the amount borrowed was utilised in the mixed funds with the assessee, and no direct nexus was established by the Revenue to say that the borrowed founds were utilised in the construction of bungalow, and were not utilised for the purpose of business of the assessee. The learned DR submitted that the funds were utilised for nonbusiness purposes i.e. for construction of bungalow, and therefore, the AO was justified in disallowance of interest. 6. We have considered rival submissions carefully and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that there is no addition on account of peak of the credit and debit entries in the case of M/s.Tirupati Construction Co. In these facts, we hold that this ground of the assessee is without any merit, and is accordingly dismissed. IT(SS)A.No.212/Ahd/2010 (Asstt.Year 2004-2005) "1.1 The order passed u/s.250 of the Act on 21.12.2009 for A.Y.2004-05 by CIT(A)-IV, Ahmedabad upholding the validity of assessment and additions made by AO is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice." 1.2 The ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in upholding the impugned disallowances without considering fully and properly the evidence produced as well as explanation offered." 10. These grounds of the appeal being general in nature, needs no adjudication. 11. The ground no.2.1, 2.2 and 3.1 of the assessee's appeals are as under: "2.1 The Ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and/or on facts in upholding the following additions/disallowances. a) Disallowance of interest Rs.1,01,812/- b) Unexplained investment Rs.5,78,818/- 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) ought not to have upheld t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T, Ahmedabad Bench vide its order of even date in the case of M/s.Tirupati Construction Company, has sustained the addition of ₹ 14,35,666/- representing the peak amount of credit and debit entries mentioned in the diary seized at the time of search. It is also noted that the assessee is partner in M/s.Tirupati Construction Co., with 12% share in the profit & loss account thereof. The assessee has filed an explanation in this regard and has pleaded that whole/major part of the peak amount of credit and debit entries in the diary seized of the firm M/s.Tirupati Construction Co. was utilised by the assessee in the construction of its bungalow. We find that the assessee could not establish with evidence. The explanation that whole or major portion of the peak of the credit and debit entries in the seized diary of M/s.Tirupati Construction Co., was utilised by the assessee itself to the prejudice of other partners. Likewise, the Revenue also could not establish that the amount of peak of credit and debit entries in the seized diary of the firm was not available with the assessee. We are of the considered view that the unaccounted amount representing peak of debit and credit entri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Firstly, the issue is disallowance of interest of ₹ 4,26,688/-. Both parties before us submitted that the facts of this issue are identical to the facts in the assessee's appeal for A.Y.2003-2004. For the reasons recorded while disposing of the appeal for the earlier year 2003-2004 in ITA No.211/Ahd/2010 in the foregoing paras of this order, we dismiss the ground of the appeal of the assessee with regard to disallowance of interest of ₹ 4,26,688/-. 16. The other issue is relating to unexplained investment of ₹ 5,48,088/-. Both parties before us submitted that the issue in this ground of the appeal of the assessee, with regard to unexplained investment, is identical with the facts of the case of the assessee for the earlier assessment year 2004-2005. We have considered rival submissions. For the reasons recorded while disposing of the assessee's appeal for the earlier assessment year 2004-2005 in IT(SS)A.No.212/Ahd/2010 in the foregoing paras of this order, we hold that the assessee is entitled to his percentage in profit & loss account in partnership firm, viz. M/s.Tirupati Construction Co. as telescopic benefit out of unexplained investment in the assessee's c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
