TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 378
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her reasons and hence the same may kindly be quashed. 2. Rs. 77,192/- : The Id. CIT(A)has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 77,192/- on account of various expenses as wages, vehicle, shop and shop repair maintenance @10% out of 20% made by the Id. AO. Hence the disallowance so made by the AO and partly confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence same may kindly be deleted in full. 3. Rs. 3,00,000/: The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of cash credit u/s 68. Hence the disallowance so made by the AO and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idences. Accordingly, the A.O. disallowed 20% of the expenses on account of wages, vehicle, shop and shop repaid expenses total amounting to Rs. 7,71,920/- and 20% of the same was worked out at Rs. 1,54,384/-. The assessee challenged the action of the A.O. before the ld. CIT(A). The ld CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance from 20% to 10% being Rs. 77,192/- as against Rs. 1,54,384/- made by the A.O. 4. Before us, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the A.O. has made ad hoc disallowance of various expenses which is not permissible and particularly when the trading result of the assessee for the year under consideration are better than the preceding year. He has referred to the G.P. rate of the preceding year at 1.11% whereas the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "5.3 I have carefully considered the material before me. I find that the Assessing officer treated 20% of the wage, vehicle, shop and shop repair expenses as unverifiable and unvouched. The AIR made the submission which is general in nature. The A/R of the appellant failed to file any evidence which prove that all the above expenses are fully vouched. Therefore I am the opinion that the observation of the Assessing officer is as per law that all the above expenses are not fully vouched. Therefore the cited decision of the A/R of the appellant not applicable in this case. The Assessing officer made the disallowance @ 20% which is unreasonable, excessive and without any basis. Therefore considering the facts of the case and nature....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Before us, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the A.O. has examined Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta and recorded his statement wherein he has admitted that he is having PAN and filing returns of income with ITO, Ward-Neem Ka Thana. He has also explained source of cash as salary, interest and casual income. He has been employed with the assessee since April, 2012. Thus, the assessee has discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the various decisions including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P. Mohanakala 291 ITR 278 (SC) and the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he employee is assessee's own unexplained cash. The ld. CIT(A) has considered this issue in para 6.3 as under: "6.3 I have carefully considered the material before me. I find that the Assessing officer made the addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- u/s 68 of the I.T. Act making the observation that genuineness of the transaction and credit worthiness of the appellant is not proved. The A/R of the appellant submitted that the so called cash creditor explained the sources. This argument is not correct because the so called cash creditor fail to explain the source the cash deposited in bank account just before the loan given. The A/R further argued that initial onus discharged by the appellant is also not correct because the onus on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eposited out of that on 03.04.2012 though were available with him at his home. From the above observation it is prove that appellant failed to prove the genuine of the transaction and creditworthiness of so called cash creditor which must for the cash creditor as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases. Therefore I am the opinion the loan shown of Rs. 3,00,000/- in the name of Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta is the undisclosed income of the appellant which shown in this way. Hence I treat the addition made by the Assessing officer of Rs. 3,00,000/- u/s 68 of the I.T. Act is as per law. So I confirm the addition made by the Assessing officer of Rs. 3,00,000/- u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. This ground is not allowed." In view of ....