Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Charges for non deduction of tax, which is bad in law as well as on facts as the entire amount is supply of materials (banners, posters and leaflets) for advertisement. Hence, the amount is liable to be deleted. 4 Because the learned Assessing Officer erred in law by making impugned addition Rs. 1,48,198/- on of campaigning & loan mela expenses at different rural areas which are travelling allowance, food allowance and other misc, expenses by disregarding the expenditure incurred by the assessee for the purpose.
Because the learned assessing Officer is not justified in disallowance of Rs. 54,603/- on ad- hoc and estimated basis out of various legitimate business expenditure under the head Travelling Expenses, Repair & Maintenance, Printing & Stationery and Misc. Expenses actually incurred. The disallowance on ad-hoc and estimated basis should be deleted.
Kindly stay the demand pending decision in appeal.
Ground Nos.1 & 2 are in relation to the addition made u/s.68 of the Act on account of loans and advances of Rs.59,95,388/-.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee during the year under consideration the assessee has received advances of Rs.31,90,000/- from 31 parties in cash as interest free advances. Besides this, Rs.28,05,388/- was received from three parties as loan. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has failed to satisfy about the genuineness of the transaction nor creditworthiness of the parties who had made advances/loans. Therefore, the AO was of the view that these credits are not genuine and addition was made.
In first appeal also, the assessee has not produced any plausible evidence to prove the identity as well as genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the creditors. since he is a dealer of Hero Moto Corp Ltd. the advance was received against the supply of goods, however, it is surprising that even after lapse of period of more than one year, these customers have never turned up to take the possession of the vehicle nor was asked for the repayment of the advances made by them. It is also a matter of fact that the assessee has failed to file any confirmation from any of the party accepting/confirming that they had made advances in cash against the booking of the vehicles.
Therefore, the claim of the assessee that these are the advances against the supply is devoid of any merit. Further till date assessee was not in position to show when finally the sale was made to these parties.
Therefore, we are of the view that these are nothing but unexplained money of the assessee which was introduced in the books of account in the garb of advances in various names in cash.
With regard to the unsecured loans of Rs.28,05,388/-, it is seen that during the course of hearing the assessee has filed certain details of the loan creditors and after examination of those details the AO found that in case of one Smt. Anjali Sahoo from whom Rs.12 lakhs was received, her returns income for A.Y.2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 were invalid returns. Further the income declared by her in those invalid returns was very meager. Further no confirmations were filed from all the three loan creditors which all were happens to be the close relatives of the assessee. Neither their bank accounts were filed nor their creditworthiness was established for making such loans to the assessee.
Even before the ld. CIT(A) or before us no details were filed to establish by a self-made vouchers without having any supporting documents, therefore, the same was disallowed by the AO.
Before us, no plausible explanation was given with regard to the genuineness of the expenses nor any explanation was tendered with regard to non-deduction of tax at source on the payment of Rs.3,90,000/- to the company towards hoarding charges. Accordingly, the same is upheld and both the grounds as mentioned above are dismissed.
Ground No.5 is with regard to disallowance of addition of various expenses @10%. From the record, it is seen that these expenses were claimed on the basis of self-made bills and vouchers and no supporting documents were submitted in support of the expenses claimed. Looking to the fact that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of these expenses nor it was established that these were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, therefore, we are of the view that disallowance made by the AO @10% is reasonable and accordingly, the same is hereby upheld. Thus, this ground of appeal
is dismissed.
13. Ground Nos.6 & 7 are general in nature, therefore, the same are not adjudicated upon.
14. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 14/10/2024.