9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nditure to be personal in nature and in the absence of any fallacy being pointed by Revenue, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed. Correct head of income - treating the interest on FDR - income from business or income from other sources - HELD THAT:- We find that before CIT(A) it was inter alia submitted that the interest was earned from the fixed deposits which assessee was required to take for obtaining bank guarantees for the purpose of working capital and for the purpose of business. Before us, Revenue has not placed on record any material to controvert the findings of CIT(A). We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed. Addition u/s 68 - share premium treated as income from undisclosed sources - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) after considering the additional evidences submitted by assessee, the comments of the AO on the additional evidences and with respect to share premium has given a finding that share application money was not received in the year under consideration and but was received in the earlier financial year but only the allotment was done ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her sources. 4. The Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.95,64,000/- on account of share premium u/s 68. 5. The Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.58,01,000/- on account of unsecured loans u/s 68. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 4. Ground No.1 is with respect to the reducing the addition on account of difference in receipt and return of income to Rs.27,000/-. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that as per the return of income, assessee had claimed TDS of Rs.4,59,856/- whereas as per 26AS the amount of TDS was Rs.4,65,256/- resulting to a difference of Rs.5400/-. The assessee was asked to reconcile the difference and submit a reconciliation statement. AO noted that assessee did not reconcile the difference but only submitted a copy of form 26AS. AO noted that assessee was generally getting income from service charges on which TDS was deducted @2%. He thereafter applying the applicable rate of TDS to be 2% worked out the income to be Rs.2,70,000/- in respect of the difference of TDS of Rs.5,400/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade without any material on record to support the contentions of the expenses being personal in nature. He accordingly deleted the addition. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us. 12. Before us, Learned DR supported the order of AO. 13. On the other hand, Learned AR supported the order of CIT(A). 14. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to the disallowance of 10% of expenditure by holding it to be personal in nature. We find that the disallowance has been made by AO at 10% on ad-hoc basis by holding the expenditure to be personal in nature. We find that CIT(A) while deleting the addition has noted that AO has not placed any material on record to support its contention about the expenditure being personal in nature. Considering the totality of the facts and in the absence of any proof of expenditure to be personal in nature and in the absence of any fallacy being pointed by Revenue, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed. 15. Ground No.3 is with respect to treating the interest on F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts who had applied for shares and number of shares applied, allotted to them but had not furnished the complete postal addresses of the share applicant nor had furnished their ITR and bank accounts to prove their creditworthiness. AO therefore held that the assessee could not prove the identity and creditworthiness of the investors. He accordingly, treated the share premium account aggregating to Rs.95,64,000/- as income from undisclosed sources and made its additions u/s 68 of the Act. 23. AO also noted that assessee had also received unsecured loans of Rs.58,01,000/-. AO noted that assessee did not furnish the complete postal address of the lender to prove the identity and nor had produced the copy of their ITRs and bank accounts. He accordingly treated the sum of Rs.58,01,000/- to be income from undisclosed sources and made its addition u/s 68 of the Act. 24. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) deleted the addition made by AO. While deleting the addition with respect to Rs.58,01,000/- being the loan, CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee, remand the report received from the AO and the assessee s reply to the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
