SHRI DILIPKUMAR MANILAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12, AHMEDABAD

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Unpaid commission expense Rs.34,500/-.

2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Unpaid Audit Fees Rs.10,000/-.

3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.46,46,400/- of Unsecured Loans in as much as, 3.1. Details of deposits have been filed. 3.2. Op.Balance of depositors Rs.950000 from whom no deposits are received during year are also disallowed. 3.3. Interest Paid is disallowed twice i.e. once deposit amount in which interest is included & secondly interest is separately disallowed.

4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of interest of Rs.103400 paid on deposits on the ground that deposits are disallowed it is double disallowance as mentioned in ground (3).

5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition to Capital A/c. of Rs.57,46,539/-. In as much as; 5.1. The addition to Capital is Rs.11,44,000 and not Rs.57,46,539 which is closing balance of capital account as on 31-03-2006. & 1562/Ahd/2013 Dilipkumar Manilal Patel vs. ITO/DCIT Asst.Years – 2006-07 & 2007-08 - 3 - 5.2. Opening Balance & Closing Balance of capital account cannot be treated as addition to capital account. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming charging of interest us/234B&234C.

The assessee craves for liberty to amend, modify and add any grounds of appeal or furnish additional evidences.

4. Ground Nos.1 & 2 are not pressed by the Ld.AR for the assessee.

5. In AY 2007-08, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: The order of learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-XX confirming the order of A.O. is bad in law as well on facts on the following grounds;

1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition made by A.O. in respect of Unsecured Loan of Rs.49,39,299 and addition to capital A/c. of rs.9,82,700 though separate addition for these both is not made because it is considered in making the disallowance u/s.69C of Rs.60,20,938/- as under, As per B/s.as on 31-03-2007 Rs. (1) Debtors 5,31,29,722 Less : (i) Creditors 4,45,26,615 (ii) Bank C.C. 50,87,916 4,96,14,531 35,15,191

(2) Investment 12,93,762 (3) Addition to Fixed Assets 12,11,885 Addition made by A.O. u/s.69C 60,20,838 ====== A.o. took amount Rs. 60,20,938 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance of Interest expense paid of Rs.2,52,753 (Correct Amount Rs.2,48,753)

& 1562/Ahd/2013 Dilipkumar Manilal Patel vs. ITO/DCIT Asst.Years – 2006-07 & 2007-08 - 4 - on unsecured loans on the ground that unsecured loans are not genuine. This is double disallowed since it is already included in amount of unsecured loans disallowed Rs.49,39,299 (G.No-1).

3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance made by A.O. in respect of following expenses. Rs. Bad Debts written off 2,47,103 Commission Expenses 7,33,260 Testing Expenses 1,93,040 ------------ Total 11,73,403 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming interest charged by A.O. u/s.234A/B/C. The whole of the disallowance is disputed.

or furnish additional evidences.

5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is in the business of trading in chemicals. Because of his wife’s illhealth and pressure of lenders and suppliers he remained out of Ahmedabad and could not file the required details in support of his case before the lower authorities. In support of his contention, assessee has filed Affidavit dated 03/07/2018 along with support documents. The Assessee has also filed certain documents which were not filed before the lower authorities.