TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 706
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eals) has erred in law and fact in deleting the addition of Rs. 1.34 Crs made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act by treating the cash advance received from various parties against sale of property as unexplained ignoring the fact that the advance received by the assessee did not appear in the audited balance-"sheet and further, the assessee could not establish the identity, credit worthiness and genuineness of the parties who had advanced these cash payments. 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in law and fact in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,21,967/- which has been made by the AO due to disallowance of proportionate interest on loans and advances given by the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o Rs. 50,00,000/-; disallowance of advance received amounting to Rs. 1,34,00,000/-; disallowance of earth filling expenses amounting to Rs. 12,72,400/-; addition of unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 1,06,41,000/-; disallowance out of vehicle running expenses amounting to Rs. 45,469/-; disallowance out of depreciation on car expenses amounting to Rs. 66,246/-; and disallowance of proportionate interest amounting to Rs. 3,21,967/-. Thus he assessed income at Rs. 3,20,49,170/- against the returned income of Rs. 13,02,090/-. 3. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who after considering the submissions partly allowed the appeal. Thereby the learned CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition of Rs. 1,34,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at since the advances were not received in the year under consideration, the learned CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition of Rs. 1.34 crore. This finding of fact is not rebutted by the Revenue. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the learned CIT(Appeals), same is hereby affirmed. Ground no. 1 is rejected. 8. Ground No. 2 is against deleting the addition of Rs. 3,21,967/- being the disallowance of proportionate interest on loans and advances on which the assessee had not charged any interest. 9. The learned DR submitted that the AO has disallowed the interest on the basis that the assessee had claimed bank interest amounting to Rs. 30,98,158/-. On the other hand he has given interest free loan amounting t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d counsel for the assessee submitted that the law is well settled. The Assessing Officer is required to give a specific finding about the disallowance. Disallowance cannot be merely on ad hoc basis and based on the conjectures and surmises of the assessing authority. 15. We have heard rival contentions. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the disallowance was made purely on ad hoc basis without pointing out as to what expenditure was not supported with evidence. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the finding of the learned CIT(Appeals) on this issue, the same is hereby affirmed. Ground raised by the Revenue is rejected. 16. Ground No. 4 is against deletion of addition of Rs. 99,41,000/- made by the Asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itors except Bharti sood and Manoj Kalra in these statements all the creditors filed copies FDRs and confirmed that they have given the s. In the statements all these loan creditors have stated that in the current the FDRs got matured and were given as loan. A perusal of the Remand report shows that the A.O has not realized that the loan creditors were clearly stating that the loan has been given on the maturity of FDRs. Instead in the statements recoded in remand the AO has focused on the source of the funds which has been already explained that these FDRs were not purchased in the current year. Thus, the question of applying section 68 of the FT Act would not lie even as the FDRs were not purchased by the loan creditors in this y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inciples the impugned addition could not have been made. In all above cases, assessee had discharged his onus by satisfying the requisite conditions stipulated under section 68 of the Act. Assessing officer failed to appreciate that the source of loans lay in the FDRs which were purchased in the earlier years, for the portion of loan that emanated from FDRs purchased by the loan creditors in the earlier years and what stood credited this year was only the maturity' proceeds of the FDRS in question. Thus AO failed bring on record any material suggesting that amount is unexplained cash credit of assessee, except Rs. 7,00,000/- in the name of Bharti Sood which is confirmed as AR has offered it for taxation remaining addition of RS. 99,06,4....