TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1589
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on cars made by the Assessing) Officer amounting to Rs. 1,04,230/- and also lumpsum disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of various expenses incurred on cars treating the same for noncommercial purpose . Prayed that cars were used for the purpose of business and expenses were incurred for business and as such the above disallowance of Rs. 1,54,230/- be deleted. 2. That under the facts & law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 30,000/- made by the AO as notional income from house rejecting the explanation that the same was used for the purpose of business. Prayed to delete the addition of Rs. 30,000/-. 3. That the learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich was assessed by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 59,62,855/- u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer observed that there are 7 car/vehicles in proprietary concern having turnover of less than 8 crores and held that 30% of the total claim under depreciation of Rs. 3,47,452/- on cars amounting to Rs. 1,04,230/- were used for non commercial purpose, thereby disallowing Rs. 1,04,230/-. The Assessing Officer also made addition towards lump sum disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- on account of other expenses on these vehicles towards repairs and maintenance, fuels etc. The Assessing Officer further made addition of Rs. 1,35,000 towards the withdrawals for house hold expenses on estimation basis. The Assessing Officer also made addition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a categorical finding that log books for each vehicle and even the books of account were not produced for verification before the Assessing Officer as well as before him. But while arriving at the disallowance of 30% depreciation and Rs. 50,000/- out of maintenance expenses the same was not based on any specific basis by the Assessing Officer as well as by the CIT(A). Besides, the Ld. AR submitted that the documents were provided before the revenue authorities but the same was not properly considered by the Revenue. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify this issue in light of the various documents produced by the assessee before him. Needless to say, the assessee be given ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he business exigency required the assessee to visit Bilaspur which was pointed and demonstrated by the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer merely on estimate basis cannot make the addition. Thus, Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) was not correct in making this addition on estimated basis. Ground No. 2 is allowed. 11. As regards Ground No. 3 and 4, the same are not pressed by the Ld. AR, hence dismissed. 12. As regards Ground No. 5, the Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer observed that there were no TDS made on transportation payment of Rs. 43,55,300/- and disallowed Rs. 5,00,000/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of IT Act 1961. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer failed to note that there was an amendment in section 194C(6)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relevant time was not having sufficient time to prove his claim as the documents/evidence were not readily available with the assessee. The Ld. AR requested that the same may be verified by the Assessing Officer at this stage. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer observed that there was unsecured loans of Rs. 10.50 Lacs taken from Smt. Radha Agrawal. To verify the genuineness, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 131 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing bank account and other details but Smt. Radha Agrawal could not appear on the date of hearing. The assessee furnished an affidavit in support of the unsecured loan and requested the Assessing Officer to verify the geniuses of the transaction from bank which was otherwise tak....