TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 137
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntial and business premises of the assessee. A notice u/s 153A was served. The Assessing Officer made certain additions. The CIT (A) has deleted. Now, the assessee is in appeal by taking the following grounds of appeal :- "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in not considering the merits of the case and in deleting the addition made by the AO after disallowing interest of Rs. 66,000/- paid to others, ignoring the specific finding of the AO based on the copies of accounts furnished by the assessee before him wherein no interest has been shown in the respective accounts. 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in reducing the addition of Rs. 43,301/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e involved is deleting the addition of Rs. 66,000/- made on account of interest paid to others. 4. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has debited a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of interest paid to others which he did not believe to be genuine in view of copy of accounts filed by the assessee wherein no interest has been shown in respect of these accounts. 5. We have heard both the sides on the issue. We find that the copy of balance sheet and profit and loss account submitted by the assessee clearly shows that loans and interest were appearing as liability as on 31.03.2005 at Rs. 18,50,000/- which stands tallied with the bank accounts which was also placed before the authorities below. The ld. DR was unable to controver....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the assessee has purchased one Topcon Retinal Camera from undisclosed source of income. On the other hand, ld. AR relied on the order of the CIT (A) and submitted that Topcon Retinal Camera was agreed to be purchased on trial basis and same was purchased from Shri Ravi Mehra of M/s. Eye Tech Industries. This equipment was not found to be up-to-mark as claimed earlier, therefore, the same sale offer was rejected. The assessee has submitted that e-message received from the said company was also placed before the authorities below. There was no evidence that the assessee has made the payment for the camera. There is also no evidence that M/s. Eye Tech Industries has received the payment for the camera.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss or completeness of the accounts and where method of accounting or accounting standards has not been regularly followed by the assessee. In view of these facts, we find no merits in the appeal of the revenue on this ground. 14. Ground No.5 is general in nature and does not require any adjudication. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue being ITA No.4815/Del/2010 stands dismissed. ITA No.4816/Del/2010 16. This appeal filed by the revenue emanates from the order of CIT (A), Meerut dated 18.03.2010 for the assessment year 2006-07. 17. In the ground no.1, the issue involved is against the deletion of addition of interest of Rs. 78,500/- paid to others. 18. We have heard both the sides on the issue. We find that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs were held to be of no consequence without corroborative documents. In view of these facts, we find no fault in the order of the CIT (A). 21. Ground No.3 is general in nature and does not require any adjudication. 22. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue being ITA No.4816/Del/2010 stands dismissed. ITA No.1884/Del/2012 23. This appeal filed by the revenue emanates from the order of CIT (A), Meerut dated 27.01.2012 for the assessment year 2005-06. 24. The assessee is an HUF. The CIT (A) deleted the addition of Rs. 10,90,000/- made on account of unexplained cash credits u/s 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The revenue is contending that since the assessee has failed to furnish any source of the funds which has been i....