Tribunal partially allows appeal, remits cash credit issue, reduces expense disallowance, and omits other matters.

The tribunal partly allowed the appeal, remitting the unexplained cash credits and investments issues back to the AO for reevaluation. The disallowance of expenses was reduced to 5%, and other issues were not addressed further.

---

---

Issues:
1. Unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act
2. Unexplained investments u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act
3. Disallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee
4. Disallowance u/s. 80GG
5. Disallowance of expenses claimed by the assessee

Unexplained Cash Credits u/s. 68:
The assessee received unsecured loans totaling &8377; 1.80 crores from three parties. The AO added this amount as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 due to non-payment of interest and inability to verify the creditors' identity. The CIT(A) upheld this addition. The assessee submitted documentary evidence to establish the creditors' identity, transaction genuineness, and creditworthiness. The tribunal remitted the issue to the AO for re-verification, directing scrutiny of the evidence and lender companies' data from ROC.

Unexplained Investments u/s. 69:
The AO treated &8377; 34,59,182 as unexplained investment since the sources were not explained. The CIT(A) affirmed this decision due to lack of documentary evidence. The tribunal remitted the issue to the AO for reevaluation, instructing the assessee to provide supporting documents.

Disallowed Depreciation:
The AO disallowed &8377; 17,640 claimed as depreciation by the assessee. No specific details were provided, and the CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance. The tribunal did not address this issue further.

Disallowance u/s. 80GG:
An amount of &8377; 24,000 was disallowed u/s. 80GG. The reason for disallowance was not detailed, and the CIT(A) upheld this decision. The tribunal did not delve deeper into this issue.

Disallowed Expenses:
The AO disallowed &8377; 4,16,129 of expenses related to hamali and transport charges due to unsupported vouchers. The CIT(A) affirmed this disallowance, leading to a 10% reduction in expenses. The tribunal reduced the disallowance to 5% to ensure fairness, partially allowing the ground of appeal.

In conclusion, the tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remitting the issues of unexplained cash credits and investments back to the AO for reevaluation. The disallowance of expenses was reduced to 5% for fairness, while other issues were not addressed further.

---