9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r parties. There is nothing on record to suggest that assessee was doing the said transaction at his own. Assessing Officer has not brought anything on record to suggest that above land transaction were done by assessee in his name. It could have been corroborated by AO with real instances of transaction which has not been done by him. In such situation, assessee cannot be taxed on the basis of on money transaction of its client. So, addition in hand of assessee is not justified. Same is directed to be deleted. Unsecured loan as undisclosed cash credit u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- Agreeing to the contention of ld. Authorized Representative, we are of the view that Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition u/s.68 of the Act without making nexus of the same with the seized material found at the time of search. Moreover, non appearance of creditor before Assessing Officer is not sound basis of addition in question while they have confirmed the same and all details of parties were with Assessing Officer at relevant point of time including their PAN number. Assessing Officer has not exercise his option to summon parties to verify the fact which has not been done for the reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties against various parties narrations - Since, deceased assessee was not able to give satisfactory answer to the Assessing Officer, so, same was u/s.68 - HELD THAT:- As stated above, assessee was broker, transactions were doen on behalf of investor. Assessing Officer has brought nothing on record to suggest that as in fact dealing in land as parties. Same could be done by making nexus to land deal. But, on such effort has been made by revenue authorities. In view of above discussion, addition in question is not justified. Same is directed to be deleted. Protective assessment of all deposits of an account - HELD THAT:- As the substantive addition on account of unexplained bank deposits made by Assessing Officer in the hands of deceased assessee was deleted. However, in order to safeguard the interest of the Revenue, it was held that protective addition towards unexplained deposits in aforesaid bank account will continue in the hands of assessee till the said amount is finally assessed in the hands of assessee s HUF. Once CIT(A) held that the amount belongs to bank account deposit should be assessed in the hands of Late Sunil D. Gulati (HUF), so, protective addition in case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Same is directed to be deleted. - ITA. Nos. 3496 to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/2015 - - - Dated:- 19-8-2016 - Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member,And Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member For the assessee : Shri Hitesh M Shah, A.R. For the Revenue : Shri. Manjunatha Swamy. ORDER PER BENCH These five appeals have been filed by assesse against the respective orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai. Since, these appeals pertain to same deceased assessee and on almost similar issue, so they are being disposed of by common order for the sake of convenience. 2. In ITA No.3496/Mum/2015 for A.Y.2003-04, assessee has filed the appeal on the following grounds: GROUND I :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) - 54, MUMBAI ('hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') has erred in confirming rejection of books of accounts of the appellant and estimating the turnover and profit of the business of Rs. 38,06,951/- and Rs.15,22,780/- respectively. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of estimated turnover and profit to the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the farmers/investors was both in cash and by cheques. During course of search, a number of computer generated sheets were found at the business premises of deceased assessee containing various details in respect of land deal. These sheets hereinafter have been termed as 'Deal Wise Excel Sheet' (hereinafter called as DWES ). Each sheet claimed to be corresponded to a particular deal and showed the status of payments as on a particular date. The amounts of on-money paid were found to be not reflected in the books of account of deceased assessee. During course of post search proceedings on 18.04.2009, deceased assessee submitted fund flow/ cash statements covering five F.Ys. from 2004-05 to 2008-09. These statements showed personal cash dealings as well as those relating to his business. A preliminary analysis of these two statements revealed that they had several defects/ shortcomings as outlined in paras 3.3 to 3.3.4 on page 3-4 of the impugned order for which no clarification was alleged to be given at the time of assessment proceedings. It was concluded that these statements did not reflect the true and correct picture of the business and personal transactions of deceas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l manner was a specific defect which showed that the books of account of deceased assessee were not complete so as to deduce the correct profit therefrom. Hence, Assessing Officer opined that the aforesaid defects in the books of accounts called for rejection of the same by invoking the provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act. Assessing Officer was of the view that non-production of books and supporting documents/details made correctness and completeness of the books of account of deceased assessee questionable. Therefore, Assessing Officer by rejecting the books of account of deceased assessee proceeded to estimate the deceased assessee s income. The Assessing Officer estimated the deceased assessee s turnover at Rs.38,06,951/- on the basis of entries appearing in his bank accounts. While estimating the turnover, the credit entries added u/s.68 of the Act were duly considered. Therefore, considering the deceased assessee s own estimate of net profit @35% and after considering the personal clement in various expenses claimed @ 25% as mentioned, the deceased assessee s net profit of the business was estimated at 40% of its turnover which comes to Rs.15,22,780/-. Accordingly, the dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, we find that assessee had been doing agency work on behalf of other parties. There is nothing on record to suggest that assessee was doing the said transaction at his own. Assessing Officer has not brought anything on record to suggest that above land transaction were done by assessee in his name. It could have been corroborated by Assessing Officer with real instances of transaction which has not been done by him. In such situation, assessee cannot be taxed on the basis of on money transaction of its client. So, addition in hand of assessee is not justified. Same is directed to be deleted. 4. Next issue is with regard to addition made on account of unsecured loan as undisclosed cash credit of Rs.4,80,000/-. Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.6,80,000/- of unsecured loans treating as unexplained cash credit. Assessing Officer observed that deceased assessee had shown unsecured loan of Rs.6,80,000/- (Ramesh Homes Building Developer Rs.1,80,000, Safar Real Estate Rs.2,00,000 and Shubham Estate Consultant Rs.3,00,000). Assessing Officer asked to assessee as to why same should not be added as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. Assessee submitted relevant details like ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was asked to furnish various details in respect of such advances. According to Assessing Officer, Assessee failed to establish the identity and creditworthiness of aforesaid parties and genuineness of such transactions u/s.68 of the Act. So, same was added to the income of deceased assessee. 5.1 Matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority, wherein various contentions were raised on behalf of deceased assessee and having considered the same, CIT(A) confirmed the order of Assessing Officer. The stand of assessee has been that vide letter dated 14.12.2011 all details of current liabilities on 19.12.2011 were submitted. It was stated that these amounts were received from the said two parties as advance for the purchase of land. It was pointed out that till the time the lands were handed over to them and those amounts were wrongly reflected as liabilities owned by deceased assessee to those parties. Since, deceased assessee had filed confirmation from both parties, addition of Rs.61,23,440/- was not warranted. Deceased assessee has categorically given the details of parties and transactions therewith. Once transaction was stated to be completed, so, it was no more liabi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of current liabilities and unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit for Rs. 51,68,811/- u/s. 68 of the Act. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of current liabilities and unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 to the extent of Rs. 51,68,811/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted. GROUND IV :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of difference in estimated higher withdrawals of Rs. 4,27,716/- than shown in capital account at Rs. 1,72,284/- on account of withdrawals. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of difference in estimated higher withdrawals to the extent of Rs. 4,27,716/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted. GROUND V :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.51,229/- made on account of personal element in certain expenses. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contain such DWES. On the basis of these documents, assessment year-wise cash payments were analysed and it was found that cash payments amounting to Rs.1,30,000/-pertained to A.Y.2004-05 which were not reflected in deceased assessee's books of account. In view of above, the amount of unaccounted cash payments of Rs.1,30,000/- was held as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act, which was confirmed by CIT(A). 9.1 We find that assessee had been doing agency work on behalf of other parties. There is nothing on record to suggest that assessee was doing the said transaction at his own. Assessing Officer has not brought anything on record to suggest that above land transaction were done by him in his personal capacity. In such situation, assessee cannot be taxed on the basis of on investment transaction of its client. So, addition in hand of assessee is not justified. Same is directed to be deleted. 10. Next issue is with regards to addition made on account of other cash/unaccounted transaction of Rs.1 lac by treating it as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act. Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1 lac by treating unexplained cash payment as mentioned on page no.14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certain expenses. Again this disallowance is not based on seized material found during course of search, so addition is not justified under the provisions of Section 153A of the Act in view of ratio of All Cargo Global Logistic Ltd. (supra). Assessing Officer is directed to delete the same. 14. As a result, this appeal is allowed. 15. In ITA No.3498/Mum/2015 for A.Y.2005-06, deceased assessee has filed the appeal on the following grounds: GROUND I :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) - 54, MUMBAI ('hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') has erred in making protective assessment of Rs.63,51,926/- of all Deposits of an account held by HUF into individual had even on merits all deposits without looking into income part of the transaction. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of unaccounted bank accounts to the extent of Rs. 63,51,926/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted. GROUND II :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) - 54, MUMBAI ('hereinafter refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.35,419/- made on account of personal element in certain expenses. The appellant being aggrieved prays that the addition made on account of estimated personal element in certain expenses to the extent of Rs. 35,419/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted. 16. First issue is with regard to protective assessment of Rs.63,51,926/- of all deposits of an account. During course of search, certain bank accounts viz. Current Account No.029204301220192 with the Cosmos Co-op. Bank Ltd. in the name of M/s.Sadguru Arts were not found to be disclosed by deceased assessee in his regular books of account. Assessing Officer observed that deceased assessee was proprietor of M/s. Sadguru Arts. In his statement on oath u/s.131 of the Act recorded on 19.02.2009 during the course of survey at his office premises, deceased assessee had stated that he had made a film, namely, Dhamki during F.Y. 200203 in his proprietary concern M/s.Sadguru Arts. Deceased assessee stated at relevant point of time that during last three years, there was no business in it. Deceased assessee was asked ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (HUF) and accounted for in that entity. In the course of assessment, deceased assessee vide letter dated 19.12.2011 claimed that the aforesaid bank account was not reflected in his balance sheet because the same related to deceased assessee s HUF. To support his claim, assessee placed on record copy of Income Tax return of Late Sunil D. Gulati HUF (PAN: AAJHS5553H) showing total income of Rs.6,11,326/- for A.Y.2004-05. The aforesaid bank account held with the Cosmos Co-op. Bank Ltd. was incorporated in the income tax Return of the deceased assessee's HUF. As stated above, no return of Late Sunil D. Gulati (HUF) has been filed for the year under consideration. Since, the said bank account was claimed to be pertaining to deceased assessee s HUF and was disclosed in the income tax return of the said HUF for A.Y.2004-05, the substantive addition on account of unexplained deposits of Rs.63,51,926/- therein has to be made not in the hands of deceased assessee but in the hands of his HUF which is a separate taxable entity under the Act. Meanwhile, the Karta of HUF passed away on 07.01.2013 and he was survived by his wife and a minor daughter and son. Thus, deceased assessee s wife is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... several defects/ shortcomings as outlined in paras 33 to 3.3.4 on page 3-4 of the impugned order for which no clarification was given at the time of assessment. It was concluded that these statements did not reflect the true and correct picture of the business and personal transactions of the appellant and as such could not be relied upon. During course of assessment proceedings, deceased assessee was asked to furnish complete details/explanation in respect of all such DWES along with supporting documents and evidences. Similar issue arose in A.Y. 2003-04 wherein vide para 3 of this order wherein we have deleted similar addition. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, the addition in question is directed to be deleted. 18. Next issue is with regard to addition on account of other cash / unaccounted transaction of Rs.16,77,000/- by treating it as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act. Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.16,77,000/- on the basis of receipts issued by deceased assessee treating all of them as in cash and unaccounted one. During course of search, a number of cash receipts containing details of cash payments made by deceased assessee aggregating to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these receipts. It was also pointed out that Assessing Officer also had not linked these receipts with necessary material evidences with the plots actually transacted by the deceased assessee i.e. purchased or sold through him. In view of this, Revenue authorities have to bring concurrent evidence with regard to the said explanation vis- -vis plot. Deceased assessee was not an investor. He was doing investment on behalf of other parties. He might have done something wrong for increasing brokerage business. After search, Revenue authorities had option to unearth transaction correspondence to the expenditure in question which has not been done, meaning thereby, Revenue authorities have not found this document in course of search. So, such transactions done for the sake of business cannot be made sound basis for addition in question. In view of above discussion, addition is not justified. Same is directed to be deleted. 19. Next issue is with regard to addition of Rs.11 lacs made on account of other cash/unaccounted transaction by treating same as unexplained expenditure. Assessing Officer observed that Page no.14 of Annexure A-l impounded from Arenja office of Deceased assessee s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiated by parties. In fact, assessee was simply broker in all these details. There is nothing on record to suggest that assessee has made these transactions in his name. So, these records were not part of books of accounts of deceased assessee and that he was only the record keeper of these transactions as a property broker. Therefore, in name of assessee, no income could be determined on the basis of these extraneous records. Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.11,00,000/-on the basis of transactions recorded on Page 14 of Annexure A-l containing the details of the amounts paid in cash to Sumeet Bacchewar and Rakesh Surve during F.Y. 2004-05. As stated above, Revenue has not brought anything on record of actual transaction done by deceased assessee himself. As deceased assessee s consistent stand has been accepted by us that he was only a Real Estate agent or broker or deal maker and hence he used to block the plots by giving some advances to the plot owners-cum-farmers on behalf of investors only. Revenue authorities had not brought anything on record to suggest that assessee himself purchased property in question from the farmers. In such a situation, assessee was entitled for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... added inadvertently as a new deposit. Without prejudice to the above, there were no fresh receipts of loan from the above party during the period. The loan taken from Satyam Estate Consultant was genuine as per the confirmation letter filed in A.Y.2004-05. In respect of unsecured loan of Rs.4,38,000/- from Shubham Estate Consultant (Pradeep Gulati), the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.4,60,000/- in A.Y.2004-05 itself. It was stated that deceased assessee had made repayment of Rs.22,000/-during the financial year relevant to the assessment year under appeal. This has resulted in reduced closing balance of Rs.4,38,000/- which Assessing Officer again added inadvertently as a new deposit. It was claimed that there were no fresh receipts of loan from the above party during the period. In view of above facts on record, the addition in question is not justified. Same cannot be sustained. Without prejudice to the above, it was stand of assessee that loan taken from Shubham Estate Consultant was genuine as per the confirmation letter filed in earlier years as well as in the assessment year under consideration. Taking all these facts and circumstances into consideration, additions in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Sheet/books of accounts. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of unexplained deposits/ unaccounted bank accounts to the extent of Rs.45,13,442/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted. GROUND III :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) - 54, MUMBAI ('hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') has erred in upholding the addition made on account of Deal Wise Excel Sheet for a sum of Rs.1,47,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of unexplained expenditure to the extent of Rs. 1,47,000/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted. GROUND IV :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of other cash/unaccounted transaction for Rs.43,14,000/- by treating it as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C to the extent of Rs. 43,14,000/- b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted. 25. First issue is with regard to protective assessment of Rs.1,56,33,474/-. During course of search, certain bank accounts viz. current account No.117150050800335 029204301220192 with Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Limited and the Cosmos Co-op. Bank Ltd., respectively, in the name of M/s. Sadguru Arts were not found to be disclosed by deceased assessee in his regular books of account. It was observed by Assessing Officer that deceased assessee was a proprietor of M/s. Sadguru Arts. Further, deceased assessee was having two bank accounts with Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Limited, viz., Current Account No.117150050800336 and Account No.117700480100052 which were operative since F.Y.2005-06 relevant to A.Y.2006-07. In his statement on oath u/s.131 of the Act recorded on 19.02.2009 during course of survey at his office premises, deceased assessee had stated that he had made a film, namely, Dhamki during F.Y. 2002-03 in his proprietary concern M/s. Sadguru Arts. Deceased assessee had also stated that during last three years, there was no business in it. The deceased assessee vide notice u/s.l42(l) of the Act was specifically as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counted for in that entity. As far as the bank accounts in the name of deceased assessee was concerned, it was submitted that bank accounts maintained with Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Limited in the individual capacity were duly reflected in his books of account. 25.2 CIT(A) having considered the submissions on behalf of deceased assessee observed that at the time of search, certain bank accounts were found to be not disclosed in the regular books of account of deceased assessee. This included current account no.029204301220192 with the Cosmos Co-op. Bank Ltd., Vashi Branch, Navi Mumbai held in the name of M/s. Sadguru Arts. In course of assessment proceedings, assessee vide letter dated 19.12.2011 claimed that the aforesaid bank account was not reflected in his balance sheet because the same related to his HUF. To support his claim, assessee placed on record copy of income tax return of Late Sunil D. Gulati HUF (PAN: AAJHS5553H) showing total income of Rs.6,11,326/- for A.Y.2004-05. The aforesaid bank account held with the Cosmos Co-op. Bank Ltd. was incorporated in income tax return of the assessee s HUF. There was another bank account, viz., No. 117150050800335 with Tamilnadu M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s held that protective addition of Rs.1,56,33,474/- in respect of unexplained deposits in aforesaid bank accounts will continue in the hands of assessee till the said amount is finally explained/assessed in the hands of assessee's HUF. 25.3 Similar issue arose in A.Y.2005-06 wherein vide para 16 of this order, similar protective addition has been deleted by us. Facts being similar, so, following same reasoning, protective addition in question is directed to be deleted. 25.4 As far as the deposits of Rs.45,13,442/- (Rs.44,73,500/- + Rs.39,942/-) in the two bank accounts bearing nos.117150050800336 and 117700480100052 maintained with Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. in the personal name of deceased assessee was concerned, according to Revenue, these were found to be not disclosed in the balance sheet/books of account of assessee. Since assessee has failed to substantiate the claim in remand proceedings as well as during appellate proceedings, the addition to the tune of Rs.45,13,442/- in respect of said two bank accounts was sustained. Ld. Authorized Representative submitted that amount also belongs to HUF and not to deceased assessee. Moreover, as stated above, assessee was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xure A-2 seized from Kaveri premises contain such DWES. On the basis of these documents, assessment year-wise cash payments were analysed and it was found that cash payments amounting to Rs.1,47,000/pertained to A.Y.2006-07 which were not reflected in deceased assessee's books of account. In view of above, the amount of unaccounted cash payments of Rs.1,47,000/- was held as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act. The Assessing Officer also held that the unexplained expenditure of Rs.1,47,000/- would not be allowed as a deduction under any head of income as per proviso to Section 69C of the Act. Assessing Officer also observed that the amount of Rs.1,47,000/- could not be allowed to the deceased assessee as per provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act and same was added to the total income of deceased assessee. 26.1 Similar issue arose in A.Y.2003-04 where assessee has been granted relief vide para 3 of this order. Facts being similar, so, following same reasoning, addition of Rs. 1,47,000/- is directed to be deleted. 27. Next issue before us is with regard to addition made on account of cash/unaccounted transaction of Rs.43,14,000/- by treating it as unexplained expend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er reflected in the books of account nor included in the fund/cash flow statements submitted by the deceased assessee during post search proceedings. It was further noted from the date-wise entries of various payments that unaccounted cash payments of Rs.4,00,000/- pertained to A.Y.2006-07. In view of the above, the unaccounted cash payments amounting to Rs.4,00,000/- pertaining to A.Y.200607 were held as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act and added to the total income of the deceased assessee. It was also held that the said unexplained expenditure of Rs.4,00,000/- would not be allowed as a deduction as per proviso to Section 69C of the Act under any head of income. 28.1 We find that similar issue arose in A.Y. 2005-06 which was decided in favour of assessee vide para 19 of this order. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, addition in question is directed to be deleted. 29. Next issue is with regard to addition on account of current liabilities and unsecured loan as cash credit of Rs.43,32,400/- u/s.68 of the Act. Assessing Officer noticed that deceased assessee had not filed his complete tax audit report along with its annexures. This was pointed out to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lained cash credits u/s.68 of the Act as the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving the identity and financial capacity of the said parties as well as genuineness of loans at the time of assessment. In the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant furnished additional evidences by way of confirmations of the said parties and prayed that the same might be admitted under Rule 46A, as the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from furnishing the same before the A.O. II is stated that the appellant could not furnish the confirmations as some of the parties were not readily traceable/ had shifted from their address and the time given by the A.O. was very short. In view of the submissions of the appellant, the said additional evidence filed by the appellant was admitted and sent to the A.O. calling for remand report after verification of the said evidence. The A.O. forwarded his remand report vide letter dated 19.12.2014 copy of which was provided to the appellant for submitting his rejoinder, if any. Since no rejoinder was furnished by the appellant, the matter is disposed of in light of the additional evidences placed on record and the findings contained in the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000/- was not returned and so the addition of Rs.11,00,000/- made by the A.O. should be sustained. I do not find any reason to differ from the findings of the A.O. contained in his remand report referred to above. It is a matter of record that the appellant has neither made any attempt to rebut the findings of the A.O. as contained in the remand report nor furnished any concrete evidence viz. sale deed of plot said to have been booked as income in the next A.Y. etc. to discharge the onus placed on him in this regard. It is noticed from the record that addition of unexplained credit of Rs.64,75,000/- in the name of M/s.Haware Engineering and Builders Pvt. Ltd. was made by the A.O. in A.Y.2005-06 itself and there being no fresh receipt of loan or advance from the said party but only repayment of Rs.31,75,000/- to the said party during the year, the A.O. was not justified in making addition of Rs.33,00,000/- again in the A.Y. under consideration. In view of the above discussion, additions aggregating to Rs.36,00,000/- (Rs.3,00,000 + Rs.33,00,000) towards unexplained credits/current liabilities made by the A.O. are directed to be deleted. However, the balance addition of Rs.38,22,4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through rival submissions and perused the material on record, we find that it is evident from the record that assessee has debited the amounts in question. Assessee could not substantiate the claim before authorities below. So, CIT(A) was justified in sustaining the disallowance of expenses of Rs.1,75,262/-. This reasoned factual finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same. 33. As a result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed. 34. In ITA No.4794/Mum/2015 for A.Y.2007-08, deceased assessee has filed the appeal on the following grounds: GROUND I :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) - 54, MUMBAI ('hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') has erred in making protective assessment of Rs.21,60,000/-. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of unaccounted bank accounts to the extent of Rs.21,60,000/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted. GROUND II :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) - 54, MUMBAI ('hereinafter referred to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in law and illegal be deleted. GROUND VII :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of difference in estimated higher withdrawals at Rs. 19,261/- than shown in capital account at Rs. 8,20,739/- on account of withdrawals. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of difference in estimated higher withdrawals to the extent of Rs. 19,261/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted. GROUND VIII :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.36,208/- made on account of personal element in certain expenses. The appellant being aggrieved prays that the addition made on account of estimated personal element in certain expenses to the extent of Rs. 36,208/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted. GROUND IX :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of disallowance of interest u/s.36(1)(iii) to the extent of Rs.4,93,674/- alleging it being not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
