Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 92 - AT - Income TaxAddition of value of purchases made on credit – Burden to establish that purchases made on credit discharged by assessee or not - Held that:- CIT(A) has confirmed the addition on the basis of remand report submitted by AO and CIT(A) held that payment of ₹ 46 lacs in the form of two cheques of ₹ 19 lacs and ₹ 27 lacs were issued by assessee on behalf of M/s. Sandeep Agarwal & Sons (HUF)/ The payments were held to be against sales made by M/s. Kay Dee Traders to M/s. Sandeep Agarwal & Sons (HUF) - from the bank certificate filed by the assessee, two cheques of ₹ 27 lacs and ₹ 19 lacs were issued by assessee and these were a/c payee cheques and these were credited to the account of M/s. Kay Dee Traders - there is no doubt about the fact that cheques were issued by the assessee were debited to its bank account and further the cheques were credited in the account of M/s. Kay Dee Traders – CIT(A) has not even mentioned about the fact that these cheques have been issued and debited in the bank account of assessee - He simply relied upon the statement of M/s. Kay Dee Traders that these payments were received by them on behalf of Sandeep Aggarwal & Sons (HUF) - On the contrary, he did not consider the documentary evidence in the possession of assessee - section 28(iv) read with section 41(1) as applied by Ld. CIT(A) are not applicable to the assessee as there is sufficient evidence of making the payments against credit balance - CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the addition – Decided in favour of assessee.
|