TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (6) TMI 77
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the assessee are not in consonance with the Rule 8 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 - they are descriptive and argumentative in nature. Therefore, the assessee has filed concise grounds of appeal, which read as under: "1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the notice dated 13.06.08 issued u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A is void-ab-initio and hence, all subsequent proceedings are nullity in the eye of law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 17,54,784/- made under section 68 of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 5,16,872/- being expenses incurred by the assessee. 4. Alternatively, income of Rs. 1,30,791/- ought to have been set off against the expense....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....784/- and disallowance of Rs. 5,79,872/- as expenses claimed in P& L account. Total income accordingly was determined at Rs. 18,85,175/-. This was confirmed upto the ld.First Appellate Authority. Assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal in IT(SS)A.no.148/Ahd/2010, and the Tribunal vide order dated 10.9.2014 set aside the issues back to the file of the AO for read-judication. In the set aside proceedings, the ld.AO vide his order dated 9.11.2015 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act repeated his finding, and made the very same additions, which were confirmed by the ld.first appellate authority vide order dated 7.11.2016. Against these orders of the Revenue authorities, assessee is again before the Tribunal b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee, and therefore, the impugned additions made by the Revenue authorities liable to be deleted. In support of his contentions, he relied upon following authorities: i) DCIT Vs. Rohibni Builders, 256 ITR 360 (Guj) ii) Murlidhar Lahorimal Vs.CI, 280 ITR 512 (Guj) iii) CIT Vs. Pragati Co-op Bank Ltd., 278 ITR 170 (Guj) iv) CIT Vs. Orissa Corproatio P.Ltd., 159 ITR 78 (SC) 7. As regards ground no.3 against confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 5,16,872/- being expenses incurred by the assessee, it is argued by the ld.counsel for the assessee that the assessee was one of the co-owners of project named "Kaivana Building " construction of which was completed on 31.3.2002 and the units in the same building were allotted to the members. It ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the documentary evidences, and therefore, there is no question of disallowance. Alternatively, it is submitted that income of Rs. 1,30,791/- be set off against the expenses of Rs. 5,79,872/-. 8. On the other hand, the ld.DR supported the orders of the Revenue authorities. He further submitted that qua addition under section 68, the assessee has not given details of sources of the credits and have not complied with the requirement of provisions of section 68 of the Act. Regarding disallowance of Rs. 5,16,872/- the assessee has not established nexus of expenditure and income with the operation of the assessee, and therefore, the disallowance was rightly made by the Revenue authorities. 9. I have considered rival submissions and gone throu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e funds have been received by the assessee through banking channel, and therefore, all the ingredients necessary for proving cash credit under section 68 has been satisfied by the assessee. In my view, looking to the details provided to the Revenue authorities and copies also available in the paper book, I am satisfied that the assessee has discharged burden put upon it by virtue of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, I allow this ground of appeal and delete addition. 10. So far as next issue regarding disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 5,16,872/- is concerned, I deem it appropriate to take note of finding recorded by the ld.CIT(A) which reads as under: "5.3. Decision: I have carefully considered the facts of the case, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deposits. Thus incurring of the expenses from interest were part and partial of the business carried on by the appellant. As has been discussed that the appellant has made the self serving contention without giving any details and evidences of the collection of the maintenance of the deposits and accrual of interest thereupon. Therefore, the submission is not verifiable. Moreover, the submission has been given first time before this office and not in the assessment proceedings to the AO. Therefore it was not made subjected to verification before the AO for the reasons known to the appellant. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the submission of the appellant as remained unsupported. The appellant's alternate cl....