Appeal partly allowed for statistical purposes, some matters remanded, others confirmed. Order dated 06/07/2018.

The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with some matters remanded for fresh examination and others confirmed based on lack of evidence or failure to discharge the onus of proof. The order was pronounced on 06/07/2018.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Addition of Rs. 81,66,124/- as undisclosed income.
2. Addition under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on generator hiring charges and transportation expenses.
3. Addition of Rs. 4,74,000/- on account of undisclosed interest on FDR.
4. Addition of Rs. 4,55,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68.
5. Disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii).
6. Disallowance of 30% of diesel, fuel, and repairs and maintenance expenses.
7. Disallowance of depreciation on fridge.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 81,66,124/- as Undisclosed Income:
The assessee challenged the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on differences between cash deposits and withdrawals, and unexplained credit entries in bank accounts. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition without considering the assessee's written submissions during remand proceedings. The Tribunal found that the additional evidence submitted by the assessee was not examined by the AO. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh examination of the additional evidence, allowing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

2. Addition under Section 40(a)(ia) for Non-deduction of TDS:
The assessee contended that the expenses were paid during the year and thus Section 40(a)(ia) was not applicable. This contention was rejected based on the Supreme Court decision in Palam Gas Service vs. CIT. The assessee also claimed TDS was deducted on generator hire charges but failed to provide evidence of TDS deposit. Hence, the addition was confirmed. For transportation expenses, the assessee's contention that no payment exceeded the threshold was rejected due to lack of documentary evidence, and the addition was confirmed.

3. Addition of Rs. 4,74,000/- on Account of Undisclosed Interest on FDR:
The assessee argued that the interest on FDR placed as a security deposit with the Mining Department was presumed by authorities without actual accrual. The CIT(A) found the books were maintained on a mercantile basis, thus accrued interest should be accounted for. The Tribunal directed the AO to apply the actual interest rate on the FDR amount and remanded the matter for determination of actual interest, rejecting the alternative plea for credit of interest on unsecured loans.

4. Addition of Rs. 4,55,000/- as Unexplained Cash Credit under Section 68:
The assessee claimed an unsecured loan from Tomar Construction Company but failed to provide identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. The CIT(A) and AO found the assessee did not discharge the onus of proof. The Tribunal saw no infirmity in the findings and confirmed the addition.

5. Disallowance of Interest under Section 36(1)(iii):
The AO disallowed interest on overdraft as funds were diverted towards interest-free loans to M/s Ganpati Real Mart and Developers Pvt. Ltd. The assessee claimed the advance was for purchasing a shop, not a loan, and had sufficient interest-free funds. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO to verify the assessee's contentions and provide reasonable opportunity for evidence submission.

6. Disallowance of 30% of Diesel, Fuel, and Repairs and Maintenance Expenses:
The AO disallowed 30% of expenses due to lack of supporting bills and vouchers. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance as the assessee failed to prove the expenses were for business purposes. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed the ground.

7. Disallowance of Depreciation on Fridge:
The AO disallowed depreciation on a fridge due to lack of purchase evidence. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance as the assessee did not discharge the onus of proving the asset's use during the year. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the ground.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with some matters remanded for fresh examination and others confirmed based on lack of evidence or failure to discharge the onus of proof. The order was pronounced in open court on 06/07/2018.

---