Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 1225 - ITAT PATNADisallowance for excess purchase - difference in comparison to purchase reflected in Profit & Loss account entered in the C.P.U. found and impounded during the course of survey u/s 133A - Held that:- What the first appellate authority ought to have caused, proving or validating his inference of the purchase as reflected being a subset of that disclosed subsequently. Though the Revenue has 'disallowed' purchases, what it in effect has is to consider the assessee's trading results as deflated to that extent. As shall be apparent, no definite finding, one way or the other, can be issued in the absence of the sales figure up to 03.03.2008. And, two, in the event of the two trading results being not in agreement, the absence of the assessee's explanation, if any, toward the same, so as to be considered for being satisfactory, cogent, etc. on merits, or not so. We, accordingly, restore the matter back to the file of the A.O. to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the difference, with reference to its accounts, between the gross profit obtaining up to the date of survey, covering a period of little over 11 months of the year, with that disclosed for the entire year and, thus, having not deflated the latter to any extent. - Decided in favour of assessee by way of remand. Addition u/s 68 - Held that:- The assessee has clearly not discharged the onus on it u/s. 68 toward satisfactorily proving the credit. Rather, on the contrary, it is apparent that the assessee's books of account were not complete, as found during survey, a finding as to which has been given by the first appellate authority and confirmed by us, holding that the same would not by itself lead to the conclusion of the same being correct. Sales, and even purchases, have not been fully recorded. Cash in hand as on 28.02.2008, as per the impugned books, is at (-) ₹ 52,60,066.the impugned cash credits, stated to be unsecured loans, do not appear in these accounts, completely discrediting the assessee's claim in its regard. If cash was required for business purposes, why was the same not recorded in the books? - Decided against assessee. Unexplained investment u/s.69 - documents/loose sheets were found, inventories and impounded during survey - Held that:- The loose sheets/documents are not on record. If, as stated, these are dumb documents, not representing actual transactions, as contended by the assessee, no case for addition is made out. Though the onus to exhibit so is on the assessee; it claiming the same to be dumb documents, the Revenue, in our view, has not discharged the primary onus to show that the same represented information from which a reasonable inference as to their representing 'transactions' could be drawn. As aforestated, as much as even the relevant documents are not on record. The assessee, on its part, has explained the transactions on most of the sheets. No addition, under the circumstances, is called for, and we decline interference. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|