TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 721
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Appeals) has erred in not considering that no evidence was found to prove that the assessee have incurred the expenditure of household higher than the claimed by the assessee. 3. That the worthy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,50,000 (one lakh fifty thousand only) in respect of unsecured loan raised from Sh. Rakesh Kumar by not considering the fact that all the three essential ingredients viz., identity, creditworthi ness and genuineness of the transaction were filed. 4. That the worthy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding disallowance of proportionate interest out of disallowance of Rs. 27,643 made by the Assessing Officer, which works on the amount made as gift of Rs. 3,50,000 (three lakhs fifty thousand) by the assessee to Shri. Karan Bansal and Ruchita Bansal nephew and niece of the assessee by treating the amount paid for non-business purpose. 3. Ground No. 1 : After hearing both parties we find that during assessment proceedings enquiries were made in connection with the household expenses of the assessee. The family of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing Officer has issued one show-cause notice to the appellant during assessment proceedings for household expenses. In that notice (copy was already attached with previous reply at pages 7-9) states on his own estimates and imaginations regarding household expenditure on different heads such as kitchen, electricity, petrol, social liabilities, education, telephone, driver and personal effects. All these expenses were work out purely on presumption, surmises and conjectures. No material on record has been brought about to estimate the same. Only a show cause letter was issued by his own estimate by ignoring the facts that life style of every family is differ from each other. Even place to place. In this case reply of show cause was also filed during the assessment proceedings (copy of the same was filed with previous reply at page Nos. 10-12) in which the facts on each at every point was narrated. But the learned Assessing Officer burst a side the reply and keep his mind to have made the addition on household withdrawals despite the facts that the appellant has not maintained any car, car driver, servant at home, no repair or white wash at home and other expenses were taken on very....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment proceedings it was noticed that out of the total unsecured loans of Rs. 12,93,661, one loan of Rs. 1,50,000 was taken from one Shri Rakesh Kumar and who was also produced before the Assessing Officer and his statement was recorded. Shri Rakesh Kumar admitted that he has given this loan out of his savings. The assessee was asked to prove the creditworthiness of Shri Rakesh Kumar but nothing was furnished, therefore, the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 was added to the income of the assessee. 10. On appeal, the copy of the account along with confirmation letter, PAN copy, acknowledgment of the return filed were furnished before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and it was submitted that same proves identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. The same were sent for verification by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to the Assessing Officer who in his report submitted that bank statement was not furnished before him. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) observed that since bank statement was not furnished to prove the creditworthiness, therefore, addition was justified. 11. Before us, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bserving that the creditors were produced and their statements were recorded and in their statements, the creditors have confirmed having advanced loans to the assessee. It was held that in view of this material, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition of Rs. 1,53,500 on account of unexplained cash credits." The above portion of the judgment clearly shows that nowhere it is stated that cash was deposited immediately before giving the loan. Shri Rakesh Kumar was stated to be a small person engaged in collecting pigmy deposits from public for bank schemes. If Shri Rakesh Kumar was having sufficient income then why he would have kept the cash at home and why he would deposit the same only one day before the giving of loan. No doubt Shri Rakesh Kumar has filed return but perusal of the copy of the return filed before us shows that he has gross total income of Rs. 1,95,095 out of which deductions have been claimed at Rs. 74,639 which means this amount has gone towards some savings and the same is not available in liquid cash. Shri Rakesh Kumar himself have been left with only Rs. 1,20,456 which is just sufficient to met household withdrawals. These facts clearly sh....