Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 1526 - ITAT PUNEAddition made on account of alleged bogus purchases - Held that:- As pointed out by us, in the facts of the present case, the assessee had admitted to the addition of the purchases made from the aforesaid parties before the Assessing Officer and in view thereof, no further verification was made by the Assessing Officer. Once the assessee had prevented the Assessing Officer from carrying on any exercise of any kind of verification, then on a later date, the assessee cannot take the stand that no such addition is warranted in the absence of any verification exercise carried out by the Assessing Officer. The assessee has failed to furnish the confirmation from the parties and the Sales Tax Dep artment has not been able to trace the said parties. In the absence of any confirmation being filed by the said parties or the evidence of the bank statement of the said parties having been placed on record by the assessee to prove its case, merely because such view has been taken in any other decision, the same cannot be applied where the assessee has not discharged its onus. Even before us, the assessee has not furnished any evidence of payment except for making the statement that the amounts were paid by way of cheques. In view thereof, we find no merit in the said stand of the assessee. - Decided against assessee. Addition under section 68 - Held that:- Both the lower authorities had time and again asked the assessee to furnish the complete details in respect of loan creditors, but the assessee failed to furnish the details and before the Assessing Officer, he admitted that the same may be added as his income. In the absence of the assessee having filed the necessary bank details and the income-tax acknowledgements of filing the return of income, the creditworthiness of the creditors as well as the genuineness of the transaction could not be proved and hence, we uphold the order of CIT(A) in confirming the aforesaid addition - Decided against assessee. Addition made on account of stock valuation - Held that:- Assessee submitted that due to large number of items involved, it was not practical to maintain day-to-day stock register. Though the assessee claims that the stock register was prepared on the basis of physical verification, but no proof of physical verification was filed before the Assessing Officer, hence, the Assessing Officer made lump sum addition. Before the CIT(A), the claim of the assessee was that no such addition could be made since the books of account were audited under section 44AB of the Act. The CIT(A) upheld the addition holding that though the books of account were audited under section 44AB of the Act, but considering the fact of bogus purchases, unexplained creditors, which were the subject matter of earlier grounds of appeal, the books of account could not be held to be reliable and where the assessee was not maintaining stock register, to make tally of stock was impossible. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was held to be justified. - Decided against assessee.
|