TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1928
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm come into existence w.e.f. 01/04/2011 and was engaged in the business of running of Wine shops in Garwhal Region. The return of income was filed on 01/10/2012 declaring total income at Rs. 11,57,840/-. Case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was finally completed vide order passed u/e 143(3) dt. 27.03.2015 at a total income of Rs. 1,29,80,127/- by making various additions/ disallowance. Aggrieved by the order, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who vide order dt. 29.12.2016 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Thus the assessee is before the Tribunal in the present appeal on the additions / disallowances confirmed by ld. CIT(A). 3. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other." 4. During the course of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee has not pressed ground of appeal No. 1 & 2, therefore, the effective grounds remained are in respect of addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- made by AO u/s 68 of the Act challenged in Grounds of appeal Nos. 3& 4 and disallowance out of various expenses at Rs. 3,08,819/- which is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....own bank account in Rajasthan as he is not having in bank account in Pauri, where the assessee worked. The accountant had made wrong entries of cash receipt and funds transfer to their bank account as cash withdrawal in the books of account of the assessee firm. Ld. CIT(A) disbelieved the explanation of the assessee and confirmed the addition u/s 68 by observing that in para 25 of the order as under: "25. However, with regard to the addition made of Rs. 30,00,000/- on account of NEFTs sent to Vimal Rani and sought to be disguised as cash withdrawals, it appears that the addition has been rightly made. It has been submitted that Shri Madan Lal gave Rs. 30,00,000/- in cash to the partners and asked that the money be sent to his wife ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Before us, the ld. AR reiterated the same explanation as was made before the ld. CIT(A) and no evidence was submit to support the claim that the cash was actually received from Shri Madan Lal and there were wrong entries done by the accountant in the books. As per ld.AR the first entry should be cash received and then the second entry of bank transfer to them should be made as against which the accountant has made single entry of cash withdrawal. He further argued that this cash was re-deposited in the bank thus there was no shortage of cash. Since no expenses was incurred, provision of section 69C could not be applied. Therefore, it was prayed that the addition made deserves to be deleted. 7. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR supported the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee are dismissed. Disallowance of Rs. 308819/- (Ground of appeal No. 5) 9. The AO observed that assessee has failed to produce the bill and vouchers of indirect expenses totaling to Rs. 30,88,190/- and therefore, he made the disallowance of Rs. 3,08,819/- being 10% of the total expenses doubted. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. Before us, ld.AR argued that the expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. He further stated that assessee could not achieved the desired turnover without incurring these expenses and since they were incurred in the normal course of business and duly authenticated by the partners, the same deserves to be allowed. He thus prayed for deletion of the disallowance made by th....