Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 747 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of un-explained sundry creditors - Trading result not challenged - Difference of opinion between Judicial member and Accountant member of ITAT - Matter referred to dispose u/s 255(4) of Income Tax Act, 1961 - Held that:- Keeping in view the fact that in the present case also there being no dispute as regards the purchases and the trading results having been accepted, in my opinion, the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court of Pancham Das Jain [2006 (8) TMI 582 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. In this case Hon'ble high court held that Tribunal is justified and deleting addition u/s 68. Also the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding of fact based on appreciation of materials and evidence on record that the Assessing Officer had accepted the purchases, sales as also the trading result disclosed by the respondent-assessee. It had recorded a finding that the aforesaid two amounts represented the purchases made by the assessee on credit and, therefore, the provisions of section 68 of the Act could not be attracted in the present case. We fully agree with the view taken by the Tribunal on this issue. The case of Kachwala Gems [2006 (12) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT] primarily supports the asessee's case that income cannot be determined at astronomical figures unless assessee's explanation has been proved to be false. Following the decision of Pancham Das Jain [2006 (8) TMI 582 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], the matter will now go back to the Division bench for passing the order in accordance with majority view. ORDER UNDER SECTION 255(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 - Pursuant to the order of the Third Member relating to addition of ₹ 10,78,71,656/- made on account of sundry creditors under section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961, the majority View of the Tribunal is that the aforesaid addition made under section 68 of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law and, therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the aforesaid addition is confirmed. - Decided against the revenue.
|