Case Law Details

Case Name : Smt. Suman Gupta Vs Income-tax Officer, Ward 1, Aligarh (ITAT Agra)
Appeal Number : IT Appeal No. 454 (AGRA) OF 2009
Date of Judgement/Order : 16/03/2012
Related Assessment Year : 2007-08
Courts : All ITAT (4415) ITAT Agra (71)

IN THE ITAT AGRA BENCH

Smt. Suman Gupta

v/s.

Income-tax Officer, Ward 1, Aligarh

IT APPEAL NO. 454 (AGRA) OF 2009

[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08]

MARCH 16, 2012

ORDER

Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad dated 24.09.2009 for the assessment year 2005-06.

2. The assessee raised several grounds of appeal. The assessee has also filed concise grounds of appeal in which he has challenged the addition of Rs. 13,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credits/loans u/s. 68 of the IT Act and disallowance of 20% expenditure out of conveyance and mobile phone expenses.

3. We have heard the ld. representatives of both the parties, perused the findings of the authorities below and considered the material available on record.

4. On issue No. 1, i.e., unexplained cash credits of Rs. 13,00,000/-, from the copies of bank account of the lenders, the AO noticed that in the case of following lenders, there were cash deposits of identical amounts (i.e. equivalent to the amounts stated to have been given to the assessee as loan) just before advancing the amounts to the assessee :

(i) Shri Abhay Maheshwari

Rs. 2,00,000

(ii) Shri Amit Maheshwari

Rs. 2,00,000

(iii) Smt. Kirti Maheshwari

Rs. 1,50,000

(iv). Smt. Mithilesh Maheshwari

Rs. 2,50,000

(v) Shri Ram Pal Singh

Rs. 2,50,000

(vi) Shri Shariq Ali Khan

Rs. 2,50,000

Rs. 13,00,000

4.1 Since the sources of the above deposits in the bank accounts of the lenders were not known and such cash deposits were made just before advancing the amount to the assessee and hence, to verify the genuineness of said transactions, the AO required the assessee to produce all the above six persons for examination before him. Despite providing opportunity to the assessee, the assessee produced only one person, namely, Shri Abhay Maheshwari for examination and remaining five persons were not produced before the AO for examination. On examination of Shri Abhay Maheshwari and also from the details furnished in respect of this person, the AO noted that Shri Abhay Maheshwari has no creditworthiness to give unsecured loan of Rs. 2,00,000/-. In the case of remaining five lenders, who were not produced before the AO for examination, from the details furnished by the assessee in respect of these lenders, the AO has observed that they have also no creditworthiness to advance such big sums as unsecured loan to the assessee and hence, genuineness of these transactions has not been established. The AO, accordingly, made the addition u/s. 68 of the IT Act and also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801/80 Taxman 89.

5. The assessee challenged the addition before the ld. CIT(A) and it was submitted that the assessee had furnished confirmatory letters regarding new loans taken and filed copies of bank passbooks of the lenders and also proved that transactions were entered into through account payee cheques only. Therefore, initial burden upon the assessee to prove the identity & creditworthiness of creditors and genuineness of the transaction has been discharged. The assessee further explained that all the amounts have been received through account payee cheques and all the creditors are assessed to tax. In addition to that, copies of their filing of returns of income, balance sheets, cash flow statements and extract of cash books have been furnished to prove creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions. Affidavits of the creditors were also filed, in which they have confirmed giving of loan to the assessee. It was also explained that some of the creditors could not be produced because they have shown their inability to appear before the AO because either their close relations were ill or the creditors were suffering from chronic disease. It was, therefore, submitted that the assessee has discharged the initial onus to prove genuine credit in the matter. The counsel for the assessee also relied upon several decisions in support of the contentions. The submissions of the assessee regarding each creditor are reproduced in the impugned order. The submissions of the assessee were forwarded to the AO for filing the remand report, in which the AO, more or less repeated the same findings and further submitted that so called balance sheets, cash books and cash flow statements have no evidentiary value, as those papers had not been filed with the return of income. It was also explained that the creditors are not persons of means. Therefore, the assessee failed to prove their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in the matter. The ld. CIT(A) considering the explanation of the assessee in the light of findings of the AO, material on record and the remand report of the AO, confirmed the addition and dismissed this ground of appeal of the assessee. The findings of the ld. CIT(A) in para 8 and 9 of the appellate order are reproduced as under :

“8. The next issue pertains to the addition of Rs. 14,00,000/-made u/s. 68 of I.T. Act being unexplained credit appearing in the name of 6 persons.

8.2 The learned AR has first contended that the AO has wrongly taken the total of these credits at Rs. 14,00,000/- instead of Rs. 13,00,000/-. It has been further submitted that the learned AR has also erred in taking the total figure of credits appearing in the name of Smt. Keerti Maheshwari and Smt. Mithilesh Maheshwari at Rs. 4,50,000/- instead of Rs. 4,00,000/-. It was thus pleaded that the correct figures should be taken.

8.3 I have considered the submissions of the learned AR with reference to the material available on record. At page 2 of the assessment order, the AO has reproduced the loans appearing in the name of above 6 persons as follows :

(i) Shri Abhay Maheshwari

Rs. 2,00,000

(ii) Shri Amit Maheshwari

Rs. 2,00,000

(iii) Smt. Keerti Maheshwari

Rs. 1,50,000

(iv) Smt. Mithilesh Maheshwari

Rs. 2,50,000

(v) Shri Ram Pal Singh

Rs. 2,50,000

(vi) Shri Shariq Ali Khan

Rs. 2,50,000

Rs. 14,00,000

From the above it clearly shows that the total of credits appearing in the names of above 6 persons comes to Rs. 13,00,000/- only while the AO has wrongly mentioned the total at Rs. 14,00,000/-. The AO is accordingly take the correct total at Rs. 13,00,000/- instead of Rs. 14,00,000/-.

As regards the discrepancy in mentioning the figures of credits appearing in the name of (1) Smt. Keerti Maheshwari (2) Smt. Mithilesh Maheshwari, it was submitted by the learned AR that the Tax Auditor while mentioning the figures of credits has wrongly mentioned the amount credit by Smt. Keerti Maheshwari against the name of Smt. Mithilesh Maheshwari and vice versa and this was a typographical mistake by the Auditor. It was further submitted that the AO while taking these figures has further made an error by taking these figures at Rs. 4,50,000/- instead of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The learned AR has clarified the position as under:

Name of the Lenders

Loan amounts Made actual figures as per confirmatory letter/bank Pass-book filed

As per tax audit report (wrongly typed)

Addition made by the AO

1. Smt. Kerti Maheshwari

Rs. 1,50,000

2,50,000

2,50,000

2. Smt. Mithilesh Maheshwari

Rs. 2,50,000

1,50,000

2,00,000

The above facts clearly indicates that as per the copy of confirmations and bank pass book of the lenders, the credit appearing in the name of lender, Smt. Keerti Maheshwari is Rs. 1,50,000/- and Smt. Mithilesh Maheshwari Rs. 2,50,000/- while in the audit report it was mentioned as Rs. 2,50,000/- in the name of Keerti Maheshwari and Rs. 1,50,000/- in the name of Mithilesh Maheshwari totaling to Rs. 4,00,000/- while the AO has made the addition at Rs.4,50,000/- as mentioned in the above table. Since the assessee has clarified the position that the credit appearing in the name of Keerti Maheshwari and Mithilesh Maheshwari was Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs. 2,50,000/-, respectively and the figures mentioned by the auditors in their audit report was a typographical mistake, the AO is directed to adopt the figures, as claimed by the assessee. It is also seen that the AO has taken the total of credits appearing in the name of these two lenders at Rs. 4,50,000/-instead of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The AO is accordingly directed to take the correct figure at Rs. 4,00,000/-.

9. The next issue pertains to the action of the AO in making addition u/s 68 appearing in the name of above lenders as unexplained cash credit. During appellate proceedings, it was submitted that in the case of above six lenders, the assessee duly furnished before the AO their confirmatory letters, affidavits, copies of bank pass book, copies of returns, balance sheet and cash flow statements. The learned AR has submitted that in their confirmatory letters as well as in the affidavits, the lenders have confirmed of having giving the amount to the assessee and by furnishing the above evidences the assessee has discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. It was also submitted that in one of the cases, i.e., in case of Shri Abhay Maheshwari, the assessee has duly produced him before the AO for examination. The learned AR has thus argued that the AO was not justified in treating the credits appearing in the name of above lenders as unexplained and hence the addition made by the AO u/s. 68 on this score deserves to be deleted.

The AO, in the remand report has however, stated that in the copy of bank a/c of the above lenders there was cash deposit of equivalent amount before advancing the same to the assessee and the source of such cash deposit remain unexplained. The AO has also brought on record that in spite of repeated opportunities to produce the lenders for examination, the assessee produced only of the 6 lenders and the remaining 5 lenders were not produced for examination. In the case of Shri Abhay Maheshwari, who was produced for examination, the AO upon examination of this lender has noticed that this person has no creditworthiness to give an unsecured loan of Rs. 2,00,000/-. As far as the copies of balance sheet, cash book and cash flow statement of the lenders furnished, the AO has stated that these documents were not furnished by the lenders along with their returns filed as such the same have no evidential value. It has been brought on record by the AO that even the details furnished by the assessee in respect of the above lenders also do not establish the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions and thus the addition has been rightly made u/s. 68 of IT Act.

The issue has been considered. In all the above cases, there was cash deposit of equivalent amount just before advancing the loan. One of the lenders, namely Shri Abhay Maheshwari was produced for examination and upon examination of this lender, the AO has noticed that he has no creditworthiness to advance loan to the assessee and moreover, the source of cash deposit in his bank a/c was not explained satisfactorily. In the remaining 5 cases, in spite of opportunities provided, the assessee failed to produce these lenders for examination during assessment proceedings. Even during remand proceedings also the assessee failed to produce them for examination. As regards the details furnished by the assessee in respect of these lenders such as the balance sheet, cash book and cash flow statement, as has been rightly stated by the AO, the same has no evidentiary value as the same were not furnished along with their returns of income. The copies of return of income filed by the assessee in respect of these lenders show that they have shown very meager income in their return filed which create doubt about their creditworthiness to advance such loans. Thus, as has been rightly observed by the AO, the preponderance of probabilities is that these loans were in fact accommodation entries which were provided to the assessee by taking unexplained cash from her and routing it through the bank accounts to give it the colour of unsecured loans. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the AO has rightly added the credits appearing in the names of above six persons as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of I.T. Act. The addition made by the AO on this score is accordingly confirmed.”

6. The ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that the confirmation of the creditors, their bank accounts, their balance sheets and cash flow statements were filed before the authorities below. All the creditors are assessed to tax and copies of their acknowledgment of filing of returns of income were also filed. The deposits of cash in the bank accounts of the creditors were explained through the above evidences. One of the creditors was produced before the AO whose statement was recorded in which he has confirmed giving of loan to the assessee. The rest of the creditors could not be produced because of shortage of time and that the creditors have shown their inability to appear before the AO because either one of them was ill or close relations of the creditors were undergoing treatment. He has referred to all the confirmations, bank accounts, returns of income, cash flow statements in the paper book and also referred to paper book page 125, which is the order sheet to show that no sufficient time was given by the AO to produce the parties before him. The ld. counsel for the assessee, therefore, submitted that the assessee proved the genuine credits in the matter by satisfying all the ingredients of section 68 of the IT Act. The ld. counsel for the assessee, however, admitted that no request was made by the assessee for examination of rest of the creditors through the commission and no written request was made before the ld. CIT(A) to produce rest of the creditors at the appellate stage. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the addition could not be made merely because the cash was deposited prior to issue of cheques to the assessee and in the case of creditor Sri Rampal Singh, PB-45 is bank passbook, which shows transfer entry of Rs. 2,50,000/- on the date of clearing of the cheque in favour of the assessee and as such, it was not a deposit of cash in his bank account. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon following decisions :-

 (i)  Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360/[2003] 127 Taxman 523 (Guj.)

(ii)  CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78/25 Taxman 80F (SC)

(iii) Orient Trading Co. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 723 (Bom.)

(iv) CIT v. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570/103 Taxman 382 (SC)

(v)  Sarogi Credit Corpn. v. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 344 (Pat.)

(vi) CIT v. U.M. Shah, Proprietor, Shrenik Trading Co. [1973] 90 ITR 396 (Bom.)

7. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the cash was deposited either on the date of issue of cheques in favour of the assessee or just prior to it of the equivalent amount, the source of which is not explained. The creditors have no source of income to advance loan to the assessee. Creditworthiness of the creditors has not been proved. The creditors were filing return of income at meager income and have no source to advance any money to the assessee. Therefore, the addition was rightly made in the matter.

8. The ld. counsel for the assessee in the rejoinder also submitted that the interest paid by the assessee on the loans have not been disputed by the AO.

9. We have considered the rival submissions and the material available on record. It is not in dispute that there were cash deposits of the equivalent amounts in the bank accounts of the creditors just before advancing loan to the assessee or on the date of issuing cheques to the assessee. In the case of the creditor, Shri Rampal Singh, his bank statement is filed at page 45 of the paper book, in which Rs. 2,50,000/- has been deposited, but neither it is mentioned that it was cash nor it is mentioned how the amount similar to the credit was credited in his bank account. No explanation is given before the authorities below and even during the course of arguments before us. Nothing is clarified as to how equivalent amount of cash credit was deposited in his bank account. In the case of remaining creditors, it is not a denying fact that equivalent amounts of cash credit was deposited in their bank accounts in cash for issuing cheques in favour of the assessee. This created serious doubt in the explanation of the assessee regarding genuineness of the transaction in the matter. The AO asked the assessee to produce all the creditors for examination on oath in order to find out truth in the matter. The assessee produced one of the creditors before the AO for examination, but showed his inability to produce other creditors, which is also clear from the order sheet dated 18.12.2007 (PB-126). Prior to that, the assessee sought time from the AO to produce remaining creditors for examination, but later on did not produce them. The ld. counsel for the assessee explained that due to one or other problem of the remaining creditors on account of medical advice, the depositors have shown their inability to appear before the AO for examination, but it is admitted fact that the assessee did not make any request before the AO for examination of the remaining creditors through the commission and no willingness was shown before the CIT(A) for production of the remaining creditors for examination even at the remand stage in the appellate proceedings. Even during the course of arguments before the Tribunal, the ld. counsel for the assessee did not show his willingness to produce remaining creditors for examination before the AO. It is, therefore, clear that the assessee has failed to produce the remaining creditors for examination by the Revenue Department in order to find out truth in the matter.

9.1 The AO discussed each and every creditor in the assessment order and the crux of the findings of the AO had been that there were very small bank balances in the bank accounts of the creditors and they were having meager income and as such, they were not men of means to advance any loan to the assessee. In the case of Abhay Maheshwari, there was very small balance of Rs. 3528/- in his bank account. He was examined on oath and he was not able to give source of cash deposit to the satisfaction of the AO. He was earning hardly one lac rupees and spent 40,000/- to 50,000/- for household purposes. During his examination on oath, he was not able to satisfactorily explain the availability of funds with him for giving loan to the assessee. In his case, he has filed return of income for the assessment year under appeal at Rs. 1,02,850/- (PB-60). In the case of Shri Amit Maheshwari, he was also having small bank balance of Rs. 2429/- before issue of cheque to the assessee and equal amount of the cash credit was deposited in the bank account. He has filed return of income for the assessment year under appeal at Rs. 44972/- (PB-71). In the case of Smt. Keerti Maheshwari, in her bank account, there was balance of Rs. 4688/- only prior to issue of cheque to the assessee and equivalent amount of cash credit was deposited for the purpose of issue of cheque in favour of the assessee. For the assessment year under appeal, she has filed return of income at Rs. 1,01,000/- only. In the case of Smt. Mithlesh Maheshwari, the bank balance before issue of cheque was Rs. 10,794/- and equivalent amount of cash credit was deposited in her bank account for issue of cheque in favour of assessee. For assessment year under appeal, she filed return of income at Rs. 1,02,476/- only. In the case of Sh. Rampal Sing, it is already noted above that the deposit entry in his case is not explained and prior to issue of cheque, there was bank balance of Rs. 3708/- only. He has filed the return of income for the assessment year under appeal at loss with agricultural income (PB-102). In the case of Shri Shariq Ali Khan, the bank balance is his account was Rs. 1055/- prior to issue of cheque and equivalent cash amount was deposited for issuing cheque in favour of the assessee. He has filed return of income at Rs. 70,373/- plus agricultural income (PB-116). These details noted in the assessment order and the details verified from the paper book would clearly support the findings of the AO that none of the creditors were persons of sufficient means to advance any loan to the assessee. Filing of balance sheets, cash flow statements, cash books etc. have no evidentiary value because according to the remand report filed by the AO, those documents were not filed with the return of income. Moreover, no regular books of account have been maintained by any of the creditors and majority of them have shown estimated income in their returns of income. Therefore, such balance sheet, cash flow statements etc. would not support the contention of the assessee that genuine credits have been received. The order sheet noted by the AO would also show that the assessee has made no efforts to produce the remaining creditors before the AO. Even in the statement of one of the creditors recorded by the AO, Shri Ambhay Maheshwari, he was not able to explain his source of deposit or advancing loan to the assessee through genuine source. It is well settled law that burden is upon the assessee to prove ingredients of section 68 of the Act by proving identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions. The assessee has, however, failed to prove the creditworthiness of the creditors who were having only meager income. No details of their savings have been filed. The assessee has never shown his willingness to produce the remaining creditors for examination before the AO. Therefore, the genuineness of the transaction could not have been examined by the AO. The smallness of the bank balance in the bank accounts of the creditors prior to issue of cheques would clearly reveal that they were not having any source and it was the money of the assessee which was routed through the bank accounts of the creditors for the purpose of giving credits to the assessee. These were, therefore, accommodation entries only and as such, could not be considered as genuine transactions. Merely because the loans have been received through banking channel, is not sacrosanct to make a non-genuine transaction as genuine transaction.

10. Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Bharati (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 951 held as under :

“In the course of assessment proceedings, the Income-tax Officer found that the assessee had shown Rs. 20,000 as loan in its books taken from two parties. The assessee produced the alleged confirmatory letters from those parties before the Income-tax Officer in support of the two loans. The Income-tax Officer served notices under section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the alleged creditors and since those notices came back unserved, the Income-tax Officer treated the loan as assessee’s income from undisclosed sources. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the assessee’s appeal on the ground that the assessee could not even establish the identity of the parties. On further appeal by the assessee, the Appellate Tribunal held that mere filing of confirmatory letters did not discharge the onus that lay on the assessee and there was no material on the record to establish the identity of the creditors:

Held, that the Tribunal had taken all the relevant facts into consideration and the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that the loans represented the assessee’s income from undisclosed sources was not perverse or unreasonable.”

10.1 The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P) Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 596/56 Taxman 304 held as under:

“The primary onus lies on the assessee to prove the nature and source of credits in its account. It is necessary for the assessee to prove prima facie the identity of his creditors, the capacity of such creditors to advance the money and lastly the genuineness of the transactions. Only when these things are proved by the assessee prima facie and only after the assessee has adduced evidence to establish the aforesaid facts does the onus shift on to the Department. It is not enough to establish the identity of the creditors. Mere production of the confirmation letters before the Income-tax Officer would not by itself prove that the loans have been obtained from those loan creditors or that they have credit-worthiness.

Held, that, in the instant case, the Tribunal misdirected itself in holding that the transactions were genuine simply because some of the transactions were made by cheques. The assessee had failed to prove the credit-worthiness of the alleged lenders. A number of other assessees had also admitted that loans obtained from these bankers against hundis were not genuine and such hundi loans really represented their own concealed income. The assessee had not discharged its burden of proving that the loans in question were genuine.”

10.2 Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465/[1995] 82 Taxman 31 held that “”even the loan through bank cannot be accepted as genuine unless the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors are proved. Mere payment of account payee cheque is not sacrosanct nor can it make a non-genuine transaction genuine.”

10.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal (supra) held that “the Courts and Tribunal have to judge the evidences before them by applying the test of human probabilities after considering the surrounding circumstances.”

11. On consideration of the facts of the case in the light of above discussion and decision, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has failed to prove the creditworthiness of all the creditors and no source of their income has been filed. At the best the assessee is able to prove identity of the creditors, but the assessee failed to prove the genuine credit in the matter. All the creditors have been rightly found to be men of meager means and no source of income have been filed to prove that they were having sufficient funds or savings in order to give loans to the assessee. On verification of the bank account of the depositors, it was specifically found that there were no sufficient funds available in their bank account and they were having only small bank balance, which was even not sufficient to meet out their household expenses or day-to-day requirements. Therefore, it is unbelievable to accept the contention of the assessee that said persons were having creditworthiness to advance any loan to the assessee. The documents produced by the ld. counsel for the assessee in the paper book merely prove the case of assessee superficially, which is far from reality or truth. When the test of human probabilities after considering the surrounding circumstances as is propounded by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Durga Prasad More (supra) and Sumati Dayal (supra), is applied to the facts of the case, it is clear that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition u/s. 68 of the IT Act. In the present case, the assessee has not adduced any sufficient evidence before the authorities below to prove the creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions in the matter. Therefore, the assessee has not satisfied the essential ingredients of section 68 of the IT Act.

12. In the case of Rohini Builders and U.M. Shah (supra), the departmental appeal was dismissed finding no substantial question of law because the findings of the Tribunal were based on appreciation of evidence.

12.1 In the case of Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd. (supra), it was also held that the Revenue did not examine source of income of the said alleged creditors when they were assessed to tax to find out whether they were creditworthy. However, in the present case, the authorities below have specifically found that all the creditors were not men of means and as such, their creditworthiness was not proved at all. Therefore, the decision cited by the ld. counsel for the assessee would not support the case of the assessee.

13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of findings of the authorities below, we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the orders of the authorities below. We confirm their findings and dismiss the appeal of the assessee on this ground. Concise grounds Nos. 1 & 2 are, accordingly, dismissed.

14. On ground No. 3 & 4, the assessee challenged the disallowance of 20% expense out of conveyance and mobile phone expenses. The AO observed that the assessee claimed several expenditures and it was also found that most of the expenses have been incurred in cash and appear excessive looking to the volume of business and also not fully verifiable. 20% of the expenses were, accordingly, disallowed. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance out of conveyance and mobile expense.

15. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that no opportunity has been granted to explain these grounds at the assessment stage and no query has been raised as per the order sheet, copy of which is filed in the paper book. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

16. We have considered the rival submissions. The AO noted in the assessment order that most of the expenses have been incurred in cash and are excessive and not subjected to verification. Similarly, it was found that the use of phone and car for personal purposes cannot be denied. Since no log book is produced to show that these expenses were used wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, no interference is required in the matter. The assessee filed list of expenses in the paper book, which supports the finding of AO that most of the expenditure have been incurred in cash and as such, these cannot be subjected for verification. Further use of mobile phone and conveyance for personal purposes cannot be ruled out. The ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the order sheet (PB-126-127) to show that no query was raised on this issue before making disallowance. However, no such issue was raised before the ld. CIT(A) because such submissions of the assessee did not find mention in the impugned order. The AO in the last order sheet has specifically mentioned that reply of the assessee is placed on record and case has been discussed. Before us, no details have been furnished to contradict the findings of the authorities below. Only copies of the ledger account have been filed, but nothing is proved whether these expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Therefore, it is difficult to interfere in the orders of the ld. authorities below. We, accordingly, confirm the finding of the authorities below and dismiss these grounds of appeal of the assessee.

17. No other point is argued.

18. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

More Under Income Tax

Posted Under

Category : Income Tax (25478)
Type : Featured (4125) Judiciary (10232)
Tags : ITAT Judgments (4595) Section 68 (173)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *