TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 995
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....including brought forward losses of earlier years of Rs. 16,24,310/- and this year loss of Rs. 5,12,660/-. The assessment was completed after making following additions/disallowances: 1. Disallowance on account of following expenses aggregating to Rs. 1,49,358/-; Salary & Wages Rs. 20,000/- Repair & Maintenance Rs. 2,000/- Telephone Expenses Rs. 5,000/- Professional Fees Rs. 15,000/- Entry Tax Rs. 1,07,358/- Rs.1,49,358 2. Addition on account of additions in partners capital account Rs. 645000/-; 3. Addition on account of unsecured loans Rs. 3 lacs. 3. Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal. 4. Being aggrieved with the order of ld. CIT(A), the Department is in appeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... deleted the addition, inter-alia, observing that facts regarding accrual of these expenses, as well as proof of the same are available on record. 6.1 We have considered the submissions of both the parties. At the time of hearing, ld. DR was required to explain the figure of Rs. 71,763/- as appearing in the ground of appeal. However, the same could not be explained. Ld. CIT(A) has recorded a categorical finding that all the evidences are available on record which has not been controverted by Department and, therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A). 7. In the result, this ground is dismissed. 8. Apropos ground no. 2, brief facts are that AO noticed that in the first period there was addition in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... he noted that the said addition was in cash for which no source had been explained. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 6,45,000/- was made. 11. Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition observing as under: 8.5 "Regarding addition in partner's capital account, I have considered the submission made by the assessee during appellate proceedings, in conjuncture with the copies of account and copies of bank account etc. It is undisputed fact that equivalent amount had been withdrawn by these three partners in cash from their account in the assessee's firm. This is also on record that equal amount of cash was deposited after few days (5 days) in respect of Shri Ravinder Kumar Jain while 10 days in the case of Sh. J.K. Paliwal. All these three partners ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that AO made addition without considering the detailed submissions and enclosures filed at the time of hearing of the case and along with return of income. It was submitted that the AO had not raised any specific query before making the additions on this count. Thereafter, assessee had submitted detailed submissions in respect of each addition. From the above, it is evident that AO had not made any specific query in this regard. 15. Ld. CIT(A) considered the submissions advanced by assessee and has found that the source of deposit of cash stands duly explained in case of all the three parts. The powers of ld. CIT(A) are coterminous with the powers of AO and if AO without making any specific query makes the addition, then assessee is e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould inform the respective AO's all these persons. 3. Once the assessee has identified the creditors and proved their creditworthiness and transactions had been confirmed by the creditors, no addition was called for. 18. Ld. DR submitted that ld. CIT(A) has accepted whatever was submitted by assessee without any verification. She submitted that the source of cash in the hands of creditors was not established and, therefore, their creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction was not established. 19. Ld. Counsel relied on the order of CIT(A) and submitted that creditors had discharged their primary onus of furnishing the necessary details. 19.1 We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record of the case. ....