TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1864
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne issue raised in assessment year 2007-08 is that the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.49,90,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the I.T. Act on account of unsecured loans. Another related issue is that the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the interest on these loans as under : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Rs.1,48,998/- Asstt. Year 2008-09 Rs. 52,819/- Asstt. Year 2009-10 Rs. 38,285/- Asstt. Year 2010-11 Rs. 43,372/- On this issue the AO noted that the assessee has taken fresh loans to the tune of Rs.51,38,998/- during the year. The assessee was asked to explain the same. With evidence. Upon receiving assessee's submission the AO observed that the assessee has taken fresh loans and has invested in 7 new properties....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o---- 2,50,0001- 8,914/- 5. Ram Gopal Agrawal ----do---- 4,00,0001- 14,263/- 6. Ram Kumar Agrawal Confirmation, computation, acknowledgement A.Yr.07/08 & bill statement 8,90,0001- 2,804/- 7. Smt. Anita Sharma Confirmation& Acknowledgment AY07/08 4,50,0001- 16,046/- 8. Smt. Dhanwanti Sharma -----do---- 4,50,0001- 16,046/- 9. Smt. Kiam Devi Agrawa -----do----- 3,00,0001- 10,697/- 10. Smt. Madhu Agrawal ------do----- 3,00,000/- 10,697/- 11. Smt.Purnima .Gupta ------do----- 3,00,0001- 10,697/- 12. Smt. Sarvani Devi Sharm ------do----- 2,50,0001- 8,914/- 13. Swati Agrawal ------do--- 3,00,0001- 10,697/- Total 49,90,000/- 1,48,9981* Total loan amount including principal & in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat mere submission of certain materials will not help the assessee to discharge the burden to prove the credit u/s 68. Considering the above, learned CIT(Appeals) deleted the additions holding as under : "3.4 I have gone through the observations of the AG and submissions of the appellant. The additional evidences furnished by the appellant are copies of acknowledgements of the IT returns, confirmation of account, etc. of the creditors. Though particulars of the creditors were furnished, these documents could not be furnished earlier for reasons of non-cooperation by them, who happened to be the outsiders. This fact was brought to the notice of the AG. during assessment proceedings and he was even requested to conduct inquiries u/s.133(6)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he AO is not proper and not sustainable and the same is deleted. Accordingly, the A.O. is directed to allow the amount interest disallowed at Rs.14,796/- (A. Yr. 2007-08); Rs.52,819/- (A.Yr.2008-09); Rs.38,285/- (A.Yr.2009-10); Rs.43,372/-' (A. Yr. 20 1 0-11) on these loans. The amount of miscellaneous expenses ofRs.10,758/- included in the total addition of Rs.51,49,756/- is also deleted, being made twice. In the result the appellant gets relief of Rs.51,49,756/- in A. Yr. 2007-08; Rs.52,819/- in A.Yr.2008-09), Rs.38,285/- in A.Yr.2009-10 and Rs.43,372/- in A.Yr.2010-11. These grounds of appeal are accordingly allowed. 4. Against the above order, Revenue is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard both the counsel and perused the recor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions he could have issued summons u/s 133(6) or even deputed the Inspector which had not been done. The creditors were assessed to income-tax at the same place and hence the AO could have very easily invoked any enquiry. In these circumstances, in our considered opinion, there is no infirmity in the order of learned CIT(Appeals). In this regard we may refer to Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. 159 ITR 78. In this case it was expounded that when the names and addresses of the creditors are given and they are income-tax assesses, then the onus to disprove the same lied on the Revenue. In this case admittedly the Revenue has not discharged the onus. We are not inclined to accept the submissions of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n deleting the addition on account of salary and other expenses as under : Assessment Year Amount of addition deleted. 2008-09 Rs. 2,01,955/- 2009-10 Rs. 1,26,432/- 2010-11 Rs. 75,600/- On this issue the AO made the disallowance by observing that the assessee is having receipt by way of rent from BPCL land and has claimed various expenses. He found that the expenses claimed were excessive, unjustified and not supported by proper evidence. Hence the AO made adhoc disallowances in this regard. The learned CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition holding as under : "I Have gone through the observations of the A.O. and submissions of the appellant. The A.O. has made the disallowances in a casual and routine manner. Though he observed that n....