TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 1825
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome Tax Act, 1961 which is bad in law in as much as the assessment has been framed without issuing notice u/s 143(2) and also no Return having been filed in response to notice issued u/s 148. The assessment is thus bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 3. That the Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) is unjustified in upholding the addition of Rs.1,68,500/- on account of treating the unsecured loan as deemed income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This addition made is illegal and uncalled for which deserves to be deleted. 4. Any other ground which may be taken with the permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal at the time of hearing. 3. The ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is general in nature and hence, the same is dismissed. 4. The ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is not pressed and hence the same is also dismissed. 5. The issue in ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is against the addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act at Rs. 168,500/-. 6. The brief facts relating to the issue are that during the year under consideration, the assessee had raised several unsecured loans from different persons and the assessee was asked to e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee. In view thereof, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that there was no merit in any addition on that account. In respect of the third cash creditor, it was pointed out by the ld. AR for the assessee that the said person was a teacher in the school who had left and the assessee was unable to produce the said person. Further, ld. AR for the assessee pointed out that the loan received from the mother of the assessee was through banking channels and the same merits to be accepted. 9. The ld. DR for the revenue placed reliance on the order of the CIT(Appeals). 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The onus is upon the assessee to explain each and every credit entry in the bank account or books of account and where the assessee is unable to prove the same, provisions of section 68 are attracted. It is for the assessee to establish the identity and credit worthiness of the creditor in order to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The assessee in the present set of facts may have established the identity of the creditor but has miserably failed to establish the credit worthiness of the persons who had made the said cash advances to the assessee. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was estimated at Rs. 14,91,015/-. The assessee was show caused to explain why the difference of Rs. 2,65,082/- should not be deemed to be her income under section 69B of the Act. The explanation of the assessee was that the overall difference in valuation of the property was less than 10% and therefore, the same should be ignored. Further, it was explained by the assessee that the Valuation Officer had applied CPWD rates whereas the State PWD rates should have been applied. The Assessing Officer, rejecting the explanation of the assessee made an addition of Rs. 2,65,082/-. 16. The CIT(Appeals) upheld the said addition. 17. The ld. AR for the assessee referred to the valuation report of the DVO placed at pages 25 to 34 of the Paper Book and pointed out that the estimation of valuation of cost of construction made by the DVO was for the period upto 31.3.2007 whereas the inspection of the property was carried out on 25.10.2007. It was further pointed out by the ld. AR for the assessee that the perusal of the details at page 30 of the Paper Book reflects that yearwise, there was a marginal difference which was attributable to the CPWD rates applied by the assessee and once the benefi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....num and the balance was managed by internal accruals and personal savings. The Assessing Officer noted that as per ledger account, the sum of Rs. 52,000/- was introduced by cheque on 30.1.2003 and Rs. 40,000/- was introduced by cheque on 20.2.2003 whereas the rent was being received by the assessee on monthly basis. Rejecting the claim of the assessee, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 92,000/- as income from undisclosed sources. The CIT(Appeals) upheld the said addition of Rs. 92,000/-. 23. The ld. AR for the assessee pointed out that the said accounts were received vide cheques which in turn were out of the loan account raised by the assessee from State Bank of Patiala. The assessee claims that it had raised home loan and out of that home loan, the said sum of Rs. 40,000/- was withdrawn whereas the other addition of Rs. 52,000/- was cash received against cheques. 24. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. We find no merit in the plea of the assessee in the absence of complete evidence having been produced by the assessee. The assessee had raised home loan which admittedly is for the purpose of investment in the home and mere withdrawal from the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he provisions of section 145 of the I.T. Act. 4. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Shimla is unjustified in upholding the addition of Rs.l 1,274/- on account of sale of books. This addition made is uncalled for and deserves to be deleted 5. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Shimla is unjustified in upholding the addition of Rs 30,000/- on account of expenditure on tour and travel. This addition made is uncalled for and deserves to be deleted. 6. That the Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Shimla is unjustified in upholding the addition of Rs. 83, 8807- on account of excess claim of expenditure of salary and wages. This addition made is uncalled for and deserves to be deleted. 7. That the Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Shimla is unjustified in upholding the addition of Rs. 50, 0007- on account of treating the unsecured loan as deemed income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 . This addition made is uncalled for and deserves to be deleted. 8. That the Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Shimla is unjustified in upholding the addition of Rs.l,16,208/- on account of unexplained inv....