TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 594
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 696/PUN/2015: 1) On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the assessment completed pursuant to notice issued u/s 148 please be quashed being illegal and invalid. 2) On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of unexplained investments u/s 69 of the Act. 3) On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik is not justified in confirming the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 3,00,717/- out of the total transport payments as against the disallowance made by the A.O at Rs. 4,51,076/- 4) On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik is not justified in confirming the disallowance of expenses to the extent of Rs. 22,924/- out of total expenses on vehicles and telephone as against the disallowance made by the A.O at Rs. 76,413/- 5) The appellant craves for addition to; deletion, alteration, and modificat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Co-op. Bank account No. 200550, Samarath Nagar Branch on 06/7/2003 there was credit of Rs. 10 Lakhs in the cash in the books J.P Builders & Developers, Rs. 5 Lakhs shown to be received from Shri J.P. Jadav and Rs. 5 Lakhs from Shri Arun Chachad. The sources of said deposits of Rs. 10 Lakhs were not explained by Shri J.P. Jadav and Shri Arun Chachad, which was deposited by M/s J.P. Builders & Developers on 10/7/2003 in Janlaxmi Co-op. Bank. The Assessing Officer made inquiries from the assessee but no explanation on cash credits detected in the books of account was filed. The assessee explained that the cash deposit by him in the accounts had already been explained. However, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has failed to furnish the sources of the said cash and hence, addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- was made in the hands of the assessee. The hence, addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- was made in the hands of the assessee. The said addition was confirmed by the CIT(A). Similarly, in the case of other partner, Shri Arun Chachad, addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- was made and the appeal against the same is pending before CIT(A). The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- as unexpla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee did not file details of the expenses, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee as to why reasonable disallowance should not be made on this account. During course of hearing, CA & AR of the assessee stated that only 5% disallowance would be accepted. However, the Assessing Officer made ad-hoc addition by disallowing 7.5% of the total lorry hire expenses and made addition of Rs. 4,51,076/-. The CIT(A) restricted the same to 5% of the total expenses against which the assessee is in appeal. There is no merit in the plea of the assessee in this regard wherein the Ld. AR of the assessee had already accepted 5% of disallowance out of total lorry hire charges paid. Upholding the order of CIT(A), ground No. 3 raised by the assessee in appeal is dismissed. 12. The issue raised in the ground No. 4 of appeal is against disallowance out of total expenses on vehicles and telephone expenses to the tune of Rs. 22,924/-. The Assessing Officer had disallowed 1/3rd of the expenditure of car and telephone totaling Rs. 76,413/-. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 10% of the total expenses i.e Rs. 22,924/-. There is no merit in the ground of appeal No. 4 raised by assessee and hence, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 is not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 25,000/- on ad-hoc basis out of labour charges, contract work charges and supervision charges for the reason that some of the expenses are supported by self made vouchers. 4) On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 is not justified in confirming disallowance of Rs. 11,235/- on account of office expenses and vehicle expenses ignoring the reasonability compared to the nature and volume of the business. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 is further not justified in not adjudicating the issue on merit. 5) On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 is not justified in directing the AO to take further action against the appellant for A.Y 2003-04 to verify the amount credited in the bank account of the appellant amounting to Rs. 6,00,000/- during the financial year relevant to the A.Y. 2003-04. the financial year relevant to the A.Y. 2003-04. 6) The appellant craves for addition to; deletion, alteration, and modification change a....