TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1864
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ogether for the sake of convenience. 2. One 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 asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. Krishna Kumar Sharma ----do---- 3,00,0001- 10,697/- 4. Manoj Kumar Agrawal ----do---- 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. Sar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is comments. In the report the AO submitted that several opportunities were allowed to the assessee but he did not make the compliance. The AO further objected to the admission of additional evidences. The AO further contended that 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 coul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcumstances of the case and the case laws relied up on by the appellant and the fact that all the persons are regularly assessed to tax and such credits/interest income are not disputed in their respective cases, the addition made by the 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.200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e AO who has chosen not make any enquiry whatsoever. In these circumstances, in our considered opinion, there is no infirmity in the order of learned CIT(Appeals). Learned CIT(Appeals) has noted that if the AO had any doubt about the transactions 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 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nly deleted the double addition in the grounds dealt with by him. Hence we uphold the order of learned CIT(Appeals) on this account. 10. Another ground raised for assessment year 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010 is that the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in 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 disallow....