TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (6) TMI 77
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eedings 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 expenses of Rs. 5,79,872/- 5. Both the lowr authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the fact and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. This action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of AO in levying interest u/s 234A/B/C of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s271(l)(c) of the Act." 4. The assessee has not pressed ground no.1 for adjudicati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 143(3) r.w.s. 153C were completed in the case of the above lenders, wherein all the transactions, bank accounts and final accounts of these parties and the loans/advances made to the assessee were verified by the AO of the above parties, and therefore, the observations of the AO that the assessee has failed to satisfactorily explain the cash credit is erroneous and not borne out of material evidences on the record. All three ingredients viz. identity, genuineness and credit worthiness, as stipulated under section 68 are proved by the assessee, 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 "Kaivan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d carefully. Section 68 of the Income Tax Act contemplates that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof, or the explanation offered by the assessee is not, in the opinion of the AO satisfactory, then the sum so credited in the accounts may be treated as income of the assessee of that previous year. The question before me is, whether the assessee has satisfied conditions stipulated in section 68 of the Act or not in respect of cash credit availed from Navratna (Kaivanna) Owners Association of Rs. 4,29,459/- and Rs. 13,25,325/- from Navratna Organizers and Developers P.Ltd. Basically, the ld.Revenue authorities have denied the claim of the assessee on the ground that there were no sufficient evidences to prove the case of the assessee. It is the case of the assessee that all the details with regard to these loans were furnished before the lower authorities. The ld.counsel for the assessee took me to page no.25 of the PB wherein Balance sheet of assessee showing credit balance of the above two lenders has been shown at Rs. 4,29,9459/- and Rs. 13,25,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssion in the present appellate proceedings that the expenses were incurred for maintenance of the building. Moreover, the interest has been generated on collection of the maintenance 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 claim of setting off of the interest income with the expenses is also not accepted for want of verification, due to absence of details and evidences in support. Thus, the disallowance of expenses made by the AO is found correct and justified and hence the....