TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1076
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) erred in confirming the said disallowance of Rs. 4,00,872/-." 2. "The learned AO further erred on the facts and circumstances of the case in making additions of Rs. 94,72,889/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 and the CIT(A) further erred in confirming the said addition on appeal." 3. "The learned A.O. erred in disallowing Rs. 1,05,852/- out of salary paid being in excess over last year." 4. The learned AO further erred on the facts and in the circumstances of case in making disallowance u/s40(a)(ia) of the Act." 5. "The appellant craves leave to add and or amend the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing." 2. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income was filed by the assessee on 15.11.2007 declaring....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 &4 of the appeal therefore considering the facts that the assesee do not want to press the ground no.3 &4 therefore taking into consideration the submissions made by ld. AR, the ground no.3&4 of the appeal are dismissed as not pressed. Ground No.1 4. This ground relates to making of disallowance of bad debts of Rs. 4,00,872/-. In this respect ld. AR submitted before us that the assessee has written off the amount of bad debts of Rs. 4,00,872/- in the normal course of business and it was allowable u/s 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Ld. AR further submitted that the amount due was income from hire charges for use of JCB Machinery and the same was being shown as income in arrears. ld. AR relied upon the judgements of Hon'ble ITAT in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dings also the appellant was asked to furnish such details. However the appellant could not furnish such details. In the facts and circumstances, as the condition laid down u/s 36(2) has not been fulfilled. Therefore, the appellant's claim of bad debt was not allowable. The AO was justified in disallowing appellant's claim." After carefully anlaysing the afore mentioned order and after hearing the arguments of both the parties we are of the considered view that the only condition which required to be fulfilled by the assessee for claiming relief u/s 36(1)(VII) is to demonstrate that the amount claimed as bad debt should have been considered in the income of assessee of the year under consideration or in any earlier year. Ld. CIT(A) has po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....It was further argued that Mr. Shirish Sanke had given loan of Rs. 56 lakhs from his bank account. The said amount was repaid to the bank of Rs. 20,74,889/- being loan taken by the assessee company. It was further submitted by ld. AR that an amount of Rs. 4,25,000/- and Rs. 20,74,889/- were being shown as loans received from Mr. Rahul Sankhe and Shirish Sankhe respectively. It was pointed out by ld. AR that the amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- received from Mr. Rahul Sankhe and Rs. 56,00,000/- received from Mr. Shirish Sankhe were reflected in the ledger account or Mrs. Rashmi Sankhe due to clerical error. The asessee had filed bank accounts of Mr. Rahul Sankhe and Mr. Shirish Sankhe. The ld. AR further submitted that the amount of Rs. 70,00,000/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounts were posted in some different ledger account. However, the assessee's explanation of explaining the difference appeared to be an afterthought by CIT(A), As in this respect no such explanation was furnished before AO even after availing several opportunities. We have also noticed that copy of letter dated 19/11/2009 relied upon by the assessee was also not filed during appellate proceedings and even before us no application for leading additional evidences has been moved. Therefore, the assessee's claim had remained unsubstantiated that it had filed ledger accounts of the parties before the AO in support of its claim of reconciliation. From the facts and circumstances of the present case and after going through the impugned orders pass....