AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 41
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee company, in the relevant assessment year was engaged in the business of real estate. It had filed its return of income declaring income at Rs. 50,797/-. The assessment was made at a total income of Rs. 56,21,040/- after making following additions: (a) On account of unexplained U. Loans u/s 68 Rs. 37,90,000/- (b) Value of plot not fully disclosed Rs. 17,50,000/- (c) Source of stamp duty being unexplained Rs. 30,240/- Rs. 56,21,037/- Rounded off: Rs. 56,21,040/- 3. Ld. CIT(A) while partly allowing the assessee's appeal deleted the additions made u/s 68 aggregating to Rs. 28,70,000/- and confirmed the addition to the tune of Rs. 3,95,000/- and further addition of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng that no departmental appeal, involving tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs, shall be filed before the ITAT. Para 10 of the Circular specifies that such instruction would apply retrospectively and the pending appeals below the specified tax limit of Rs. 10 lakh may be withdrawn/not pressed. However, we are not in agreement with the submission of ld. DR that the assessee's CO becomes infructuous. 9. Ld. counsel has rightly pointed out that in view of section 253(4), the cross objection is to be disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal as if it were an appeal presented within the time specified in sub-section (3) or sub-section (3A). The right to file cross objection crystallizes the moment appeal is filed by either party. As per mandate of secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A) the assessee explained as under: "Firstly, factual error by the AO is that the correct cash deposit Rs. 10,0001- and not Rs. 1,00,0001-. The total cash deposit before issue of cheque. is only Rs. 12,0001-. Thus, the basis of the AO is itself incorrect. Secondly, in the bank account Rs. 44,0901- are appearing as opening balance as on 01.04.2005 which has also been used for loan. Thus, to this extent, the loan amount, in any case, cannot be added. Thirdly, the creditor in his statement duly admitted the loan and also explained the source which remains unrebutted. Fourthly, on the basis of following documents furnished to the AO, the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity stands proved. Fifthly, the AO has not proved that the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....son to confirm the findings of lower revenue authorities in regard to this amount. Accordingly, ground is allowed. 16. Apropos loan from Ashok Kumar, brief facts are than loan of Rs. 2,65,000/- was taken from him. The AO has observed that there was cash deposit of Rs. 2,66,000/-, before issuing cheques of loan to the assessee company. The assessee's submission was that Ashok Kumar was owning 6 acres of agriculture land and a small kiryana store. The AO observed that it is hard to comprehend that such small farmers, residing in a a far off village or doing petty businesses were advancing money interest free and without any other benefit to a company engaged in real estate business with sole motto of earning profits. He pointed out that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in Asstt. adversely." 18. Ld. CIT(A) observed as under: 8.5.2 It is seen from the account copy, the amount received during the financial year relevant for A. Y. was only Rs. 1,50,000/-. Hence the addition, if at all to be made, is only Rs. 1,50,000/--. I am in agreement with the contention of the AR in this regard. As seen from the details furnished, there is no proper sources for lending money, though he had confirmed the advance in the statement recorded. On careful consideration of the material available on record, the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-, which was received during the year is treated as unexplained. Relief: Rs. 1,50,000/-". 19. From bare perusal of the observations made by CIT(A) it is evident that he has not at all ....