9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned from the civil petty contract but he has deposited of ₹ 9,61,984/- in his bank account. The assessee could not establish the deposits in bank account that it has been received from the contractee with cogent materials. Therefore, keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the observations of the lower authorities in this regard are justified. This ground of appeal is dismissed. Addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- The assessee has not proved the creditworthiness of the lenders in respect of total loan received by him. The letter sent by the Assessing Officer was also returned back which has not been made compliance before any of the authorities below. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of both the sides, we dismiss this ground of appeal of the assessee. Charging of interest u/s 234A 234B - HELD THAT:- We find that the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ajay Prakash Verma Vs. ITO [ 2013 (1) TMI 140 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] has held that the revenue can levy the interest only on the total income declared in the return of income and not on the income a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL : 1. For that in respect of addition of ₹ 2,43,236/- consisting of interest and maturity of FDs, Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing to reduce only the amount interest already shown in the ROI, after due verification. The maturity value same also consisted of the face value of FDs, amounting to ₹ 48,113/- x 4 = ₹ 1,92,452/- as on 10.10.2008, which did not amount to income of the appellant. As such further direction be given to reduce the face value of the FDs also. It is, stated and submitted that the above ground arises out of the order of Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(Appeals). However, at the time of filing of appeal, due to mistake of the Counsel, it was not taken in the Ground of Appeal, already filed. It is, therefore, requested that the same may be admitted and the appeal be heard on this ground also. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the the assessee derived income from running proprietorship business in the name style as Sablok Associates which deals in readymade garments etc., income from other sources etc and filed his original Return of Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ieved from the assessment order, the assessee appealed before the CIT(A), wherein the CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and findings of the Assessing Officer, upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer except the addition made on account of income from other sources and directed the Assessing Officer to examine the issue and to reduce the addition after deducting the interest already shown in the return of income. Finally, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Further aggrieved from the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 6. Ld. AR before us did not argue the ground No.1 on legal issue regarding challenging the reopening the assessment u/s.147/148 of the Act. Accordingly, ground No.1 is dismissed as not pressed. 7. For rest of the grounds, ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and filed paper book containing 24 pages. Further ld. AR submitted that in respect of addition of ₹ 9,16,984/- regarding cash deposit made in the bank account. He submitted that the assessee had filed return o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were also submitted by the assessee, neither any labour details or labour payments or any work orders have been submitted by the assessee. Further in respect of unsecured loan, ld.DR submitted that the assessee could not establish his liability to comply the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. The letters sent by the Assessing Officer were returned unserved. Once the letters issued by the Assessing Officer returned unserved, it was the duty of the assessee to comply the notice but he could not do so. Further the AR of the assessee has produced bank statements before the Tribunal only for a short period in which only opening balance is appearing. Further, it was noticed that there was a cash deposit of ₹ 1,75,000/-. Thereafter no other deposits had been made by Parvati Pal. Further no creditworthiness have been proved by the assessee. Therefore, in these circumstances, the lower authorities are justified. In respect of additional ground, ld.DR had no objection for sending back the issue to the file of Assessing Officer for verification. 10. After hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the material available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee has also not produced any details before us of the relevant part of the Income Tax Return in which there is a separate columns for the income offered u/s.44AD of the Act. The assessee is also unable substantiate with any external vouchers that the amount has been received from the contractee for civil contract works done. No any work order nor any receipts from the contractee has been produced by the assessee. The assessee is only to correlate with the receipts from the contractee as well as the deposit of some amount in the bank account. Ld. AR before us submitted that there was a profit of ₹ 2,16,932/- has been earned from the civil petty contract but he has deposited of ₹ 9,61,984/- in his bank account. The assessee could not establish the deposits in bank account that it has been received from the contractee with cogent materials. Therefore, keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the observations of the lower authorities in this regard are justified. This ground of appeal is dismissed. 12. Further in respect of unsecured loan of ₹ 11,10,000/-, the assessee was unable to di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
