SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR AHUJA,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTA

In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved for the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 3.00 lacs on account of deposits in the bank accounts.

Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. The facts in brief are that the assessee is a partner in the firm M/s Israr Baig & Party, Kota. The AO noted that the assessee introduced fresh capital of Rs.12,39,662/- this year and the sources thereof was explained to be recovery of the old loans given Rs.9,00,000/- to Shri Galib Baig on 10.03.2009 and received on 15.04.2009 and Rs.3,00,000/- as loan taken from Shri Amar Nath Kathuria, on 17.07.2009. The Assessing Officer did not agree with the receipt of loan of Rs. 3.00 lacs from Shri Amar Nath Kathuria, accordingly, the same was added to the assessee’s income. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Now the assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT.

I have considered the rival contentions and found that the impugned amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was taken from Shri Amarnath Kathuria through banking channels on dated 17.07.2009. This fact is verifiable from Bank Statement of the assessee as well as lender Shri Amar Nath Kathuria. The same very amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was repaid to him on dated 4.11.2009 that too through bank transfer. In the Bank Passbook of Bank of Rajasthan Limited, there is a clear mention of the receipt of Rs. 3,00,000/- on dated 17.07.2009 and repayment of ITA 37/JP/2018 3 Pradeep Kr. Ahuja Vs. ITO Rs.3,00,000/- on 04.11.2009. After receiving the loan from Shri Kathuria, the same amount thereafter, was transferred on the very next day i.e. on dated. 18.07.2009 to the firm M/s Israr Beg & Party vide a D.D No. 466385. We also observe that the assessee was having his bank account in Bank of Rajasthan Limited. Thereafter, the said bank of Rajasthan ltd. got merged with the ICICI Bank ltd. There was a simple mention of a word ‘transfer’ and name of Sh. Amaranth Kathuria was not showing. The assessee approached the ICICI bank and obtained Account Ledger Inquiry in the form of Online Financial Transaction Inquiry showing complete details. The assessee also obtained the similar Online Financial Transaction Inquiry from the lender Shri Amar Nath Kathuria wherein the receipt by the assessee of Rs.3,00,000/- has been shown as payment i.e. corresponding debit in the account of Shri Kathuria.

In view of above, I can safely conclude that the transaction of Rs. 3,00,000/- received/paid back was is fully supported by the evidences as it was done through banking channels and the status of transaction is also cross verified from the information obtained from the bank. The assessee filed cash book ad well as bank passbook of Raj. Bank alongwith letter dated 28/02/2013.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any justification in the addition of Rs. 3.00 lacs so made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the same.

The assessee is also aggrieved for confirming the addition of Rs. 36,000/- by the ld. CI(A) on account of household expenses.

Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. From the record I found that the assessee debited Rs.48,000/- towards drawings.

The Assessing Officer asked explanation for showing such low household expenses. The assessee submitted that Rs.48,000/- are for his personal use and being a bachelor this amount is sufficient for him as he is living in his parental old house with his uncle. The Assessing Officer made addition alleging that the assessee is a big businessman and leads a lavish life, maintains cars and involved in liquor business hence his household expenses should be minimum at Rs.1,20,000/- per annum i.e. Rs.10,000/- per month. Hence an addition of Rs.72,000/- was made by the Assessing Officer.

By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the estimation so made by the Assessing Officer is at higher side, accordingly, he estimated Rs. 7,000/- per month as household

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part.