SHYAM SUNDER BHAGAT,PAKUR vs. ITO,WARD-3(4), DHANBAD

The assessee’s first substantive grievance seeks to delete sec. 68 unexplained cash credits addition made in both the lower proceedings to the tune of Rs.3.25 lakhs and Rs.5 lakh involving as many creditors Shri Paras Bhakat and Shri Ram Yadav; respectively. I find during the course of hearing that the former creditor Shri Paras Bhakat had not only appeared in person but also filed all bank statement details as Assessment Year:2010-11 Shyam Sunder Bhagat Vs. ITO Wd-3(4), DHN Page 2 well as income tax returns etc. during the course of assessment. Learned counsel quotes hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s Tax case No.02 of 1999 Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Girdhar Agencies, dated 07.09.2010 that such in a evidence is sufficient to discharge onus of proving identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors concerned. The assessee’s first substantive ground succeeds qua former creditor Shri Paras Bhakat hereinabove.

Coming to latter sum of Rs.5 lakh of Shri Ram Yadav, it is evident from the case file that the said creditor did not appear allegedly due to his illness. Learned counsel submits in light of the hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision and this latter creditor’s income tax return(s) that the assessee has sufficiently discharged his onus of proving the foregoing three ingredients. I find no merit in assessee’s instant latter argument. The fact remains that the creditor had not only made cash deposits immediately in his bank account before advancing the loan in question but also filed income tax return much after the relevant previous year. All this sufficiently indicates that the assessee has failed to discharge his onus. I accordingly confirm the impugned addition of Rs.5 lakhs in these facts and circumstances.

Next comes depreciation disallowance made by both the lower authorities restricting the assessee’s claim @ 30% on JCB and Pokland restricted to 15% only. This tribunal’s co-ordinate bench’s decision in decided on 22.11.2018 in New Punjab Motro Transport vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2), Jamshedpur and (2010) 8 taxmann.com 62 (Kol) Bothra Shipping Services vs. Commissioner of Income-tax-XII, Kolkata hold that the impugned higher depreciation claim is very much admissible in such category of vehicles which are registered under motor vehicle. I therefore direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned higher depreciation claim.

Lastly comes the assessee’s 4th and 5th substantive grounds challenging 5. estimated disallowance(s) of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.30,000/- on repair / maintenance and miscellaneous head(s); respectively made in both the lower appellate proceedings. The Assessment Year:2010-11 Shyam Sunder Bhagat Vs. ITO Wd-3(4), DHN Page 3 fact remains neither the assessee has satisfactorily discharged his onus of proving both these head(s) by filing the requisite evidence the department has fail to pin-point any abnormality vis-à-vis preceding and succeeding assessment year herein. I therefore deem it appropriate to restrict the former head of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.20,000/- and latter head of Rs.30,000/- to Rs.10,000/-; respectively. Necessary computation including that of interest to follow as per law.