TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 515
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. First, we take up the appeal filed by the Revenue, i.e. ITA No.5/Ahd/2012. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- made u/s.68 of the Act and Rs. 41,900/- being interest paid thereon. 2. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of shop rent & godown rent of Rs. 1,92,600/-. 3. On the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) may be setaside and that the order of the Assessing Officer be restored to the above....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isallowance of Rs. 1,53,290/-. The ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 3,86,269/- (Rs.4,83,019 - Rs. 96,750/-) in respect of the addition made u/s.69 of the Act for deposits in the bank account. In respect of the travelling expenses, the ld.CIT(A) restricted the addition to 10% of the total disallowance (amounting to Rs. 16,775/-). The ld.CIT(A) in respect of other expenditure, being telephone, petrol and depreciation on car restricted to 1/10th of the total disallowance. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), both the Revenue and the Assessee have challenged by way of appeal and cross-objection respectively. 3. So far as ground No.1 of Revenue's appeal is concerned, the ld.Sr.DR vehemently argued that the ld.CIT(A) was not justifie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the addition by observing as under:- "4.10 After considering the material on record and in view of the law laid down in the aforesaid judicial decisions, I am of the opinion that the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the cash credits of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/-) accepted during the year under consideration as unexplained was not said to be legally correct on account of the following reasons: (i) The appellant had established all the three ingredients necessary for explaining the genuineness of the cash credits. The appellant had thus discharged the primary onus casted upon him as per the provisions of section 68 of the Act as under: (a) The identity of the depositors stands established by the affidavi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h that the cash was given by the appellant. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Dimco Silk Mills vs. ITO 107 Taxman 41 (Ahd.). (v) The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court as well as the other High Courts had held that the assessee can be asked to prove the source of creditor. It is not the obligation of the assessee to prove the source of source in the explanation about such credit with the assessee." 4.1. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the finding of ld.CIT(A). There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the identity of the depositors is not doubted. The genuineness of the transaction also established as the same effected through banking channel. The assessee has furnished ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant were audited. The shops and godown were not taken on rent during the year under consideration but the same were taken on rent in A.Y. 2003-04. No such disallowance were made in earlier year. The Ld. Counsel has furnished sufficient evidence for the tenancy of the shop and godown. Such evidences were also independently filed before the Assessing Officer during remand proceedings vide letter dated 11.08.2011. After considering the evidences so filed, there is no justification for disallowing the shop and godown rent of Rs. 1,14,600/- and Rs. 78,000/- respectively. The disallowance so made is hereby deleted. The fourth ground of appeal is accordingly allowed. 6.1. The above finding of the ld.CIT(A) is not controverted by the ld.Sr.DR by ....