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 750 - AT - Income TaxDeletion of addition u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 - Preceding year decision was in favour of assessee - Treatment of expenditure on Land development - Disallowance of expenses - Held that:- The assessee has failed to establish that the goods were in fact purchased on credit in respect of the alleged credit of ₹ 1,05,01,948/- for which addition was made by the Assessing Officer because the assessee could not even furnish the confirmation from them or their addresses or the party wise outstanding amount with period, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal decision in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2005-06 [2015 (4) TMI 747 - ITAT LUCKNOW] and the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court followed therein having been rendered in the case of Pancham Das [2006 (8) TMI 582 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] are not applicable and therefore, the assessee do not get any help from these judgments in the facts of the present case. We also find that it is noted by CIT(A) in Para 5.5.2 of his order that the creditors outstanding as on 31/03/2006 were paid at the end of the financial year, which means that even after the end of the present accounting year i.e. financial year 2005-06, the creditors were admittedly outstanding for one full year and it may be that the creditors were outstanding for a very long period of time. We fail to understand that whether small raw hide suppliers can afford to provide this long credit and hence, this claim cannot be accepted in the absence of confirmation from supplier and their addresses. We, therefore, reverse the order of CIT(A) on this issue and restore that of the Assessing Officer. - Decided in favor revenue. Expenditure on Land development - We find that a clear finding is given by CIT(A) that the disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer on estimated basis without pointing out any specific item of purchase or expenditure of unverifiable nature or without proper supporting bills and vouchers. This finding of CIT(A) could not be controverted by Learned D.R. of the Revenue and therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A). Accordingly, these grounds are rejected. - Decided partly in favour of revenue.
|