Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 927 - AT - Income TaxDeletion on account of bogus sundry creditors – Held that:- There was no evidence to show that purchases were paid from disclosed sources of money - assessee had failed to produce any purchase bill or records in support of the purchases - Out of the three creditors, M/s. RVPL was not only not existing during the period when assessee claimed to have made purchases for it, but it had also denied any transaction with the assessee at all. It's Directors even stated that they were willing to pay 50% of the money to the Tax Department, if the assessee was willing to pay the amount shown as payable to them. Assessee was given an opportunity for producing the creditors and examining them. Assessee did not avail such opportunity – there was no fault in the order of AO for coming to a conclusion that the transactions, effected to the extent of the credit balances in the names of these three parties were not genuine and were bogus - assessee had definitely effected purchases, but not to the extent shown by it, as proved by the existence of bogus creditors – AO had not at any point of time stated that he was making the addition under section 68 of the Act - He never considered the amount as unexplained cash credit - He simply disbelieved the purchases to that extent – thus, CIT(A) fell in error, when he deleted the addition and directed a best of judgment assessment after rejecting the books, especially when AO had not done so – thus, the addition made for bogus sundry creditors is upheld – Decided in favour of Revenue. Addition of bogus loan credit – Held that:- The assessee had discharged the primary onus resting on her, by producing confirmation letters, PAN of the concerned parties - CIT(Appeals) has clearly brought out that concerned parties were having sufficient capital balance as on 31.03.2008 for justifying it - This has not been rebutted by the Revenue – thus, there is no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) – Decided against Revenue.
|