ASHOK KUMAR AGARWALA,MAYURBHANJ vs. ITO, BARIPADA

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the

Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Cuttack dated 25.5.2015 for the

assessment year 2010-2011.

adjudication.

“2. For that the addition of Rs.22,000/- under the head “investment in hotel building” as sustained by the CIT(A) is uncalled for. 3. For that the addition of Rs.39,000/- in respect of loans from different persons as sustained by the CIT(A) is also improper.”

P a g e 1 | 4

ITA No. 424/CT K/ 2015 Asse ssment Year: 20 10- 201 1

grounds and hence, they are dismissed as not pressed.

CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.4,00,000/- under the head

“unexplained credit in Bank account” made by the AO.

account of the assessee maintained with Odisha Gramya Bank, Rairangpur

Branch, the Assessing Officer noticed that Rs.4,00,000/- has been credited

to the bank account on 25.3.2010 through cheque No.261101. Since the

assessee could not offer any explanation regarding the source of

Rs.4,00,000/- credited in the bank account, the Assessing officer added the

same to the income of the assessee, which was upheld in first appeal.

given by Shri Mohan Lal Agarwal in the name of the assessee on 25.3.2010

A/c No.CC 48 placed in paper book and submitted that since the amount

has been credited in the bank through cheque, no adverse inference can be

drawn regarding the credit of account and, therefore, the addition made

may kindly be deleted.

authorities no such proof was furnished by the assessee.

P a g e 2 | 4

ITA No. 424/CT K/ 2015 Asse ssment Year: 20 10- 201 1

had doubted the source of money credited in the bank account of the

assessee. Now, the assessee has filed a xerox copy of cheque of

Rs.4,00,000/- to prove that Shri Mohan Lal Agarwal has issued the cheque

in favour of the assessee and, therefore, the source of which is explained.

Ld D.R. could not controvert to the submission of xerox copy of the cheque.

I find that the cheque No. mentioned in the assessment order is tallied with

the copy of cheque now furnished by ld A.R. of the assessee. In view of

above, I am satisfied that the source of Rs.4,00,000/- is duly explained by

the assessee and, therefore, same is deleted. This ground of appeal is

allowed.

head “depreciable assets”.

order, I find that the assessee has shown capital assets in the balance sheet

and liability, which was not questioned by the AO. However, the CIT(A) in

the first appeal, has directed to restrict the disallowance of depreciation of

Rs.54,800/-. The CIT(A) also accepted the purchases of assets to be

genuine but observed that same should be allowed. From the above

notings of the CIT(A), I find that the findings of the CIT(A) is contradictory

that on one hand, he observed that the depreciation should be allowed and

on other hand, restricted the allowance of depreciation of Rs.54,800/-. I

P a g e 3 | 4

ITA No. 424/CT K/ 2015 Asse ssment Year: 20 10- 201 1

am of the view that the depreciation cannot be denied to the capital assets,

where the purchases of the assets are not disputed. In view of above, I

delete the addition of Rs.54,800/- towards depreciation of capital assets and

allow this ground of appeal.

Rs.3,290/- towards difference in bills for A.C. & T.V.

of the CIT(A) in confirming the disallowances as the discrepancies were not

complied with by the assessee. Hence, this ground of appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 15 /07/2019. Sd/- (Chandra Mohan Garg) JUDICIALMEMBER Cuttack; Dated 15/07/209 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The appellant: Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Ward No.5, Rairangpur

Sr. Pvt. Secretary, ITAT, Cuttack

P a g e 4 | 4