Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 223 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 69C - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- In the instant case, we notice that the assessing officer has placed heavy reliance on certain documents first referring to the seized material. The AO himself observes that the page 81 pertains to Consignment Purchases. There should not be any dispute that the assessee would be acting as an agent only in respect of Consignment purchases and hence the concerned principal would be liable to answer the differences, if any, in the transactions. In respect of transactions found in page 82 relating to M/s Haryana Steels, the assessee has stated that they are also related to consignment purchase. We notice that the assessing officer has, in fact, examined Ledger account copy of the assessee as available in the books of M/s Haryana Steels and found that there are differences. Though the AO observes that the assessee could not reconcile the difference, yet we notice that there was a difference of a meager amount, which the assessee has explained that it could be a rebate difference. We notice that the assessing officer has not examined M/s Haryana Steels in order to disprove the claim of the assessee. Without examining the explanations given by the assessee and without disproving the same, we are of the view that the AO was not justified in drawing adverse inferences against the assessee. AO, in order to invoke the provisions of sec. 69C, should give a categorical finding that the assessee has incurred any expenditure. In the instant case, the assessing officer has not even attempted to find out as to whether the relevant transactions, in which the alleged rate difference was found, pertain to the assessee or not. In this regard, the AO should have examined the books of accounts maintained by the assessee, which he has failed to do. In our view, the AO could not have drawn adverse inference without examining the books of account in order to find out as to whether the said transactions belong to the assessee, particularly in view of the fact that the assessee has been acting as consignment agent also. Hence we are of the view that the rate difference noticed in the documents cannot come to the support of the AO. In the instant case, the view of the AO could have been upheld if he had made one to one comparison of purchase bills found during the course of search/survey with the entries recorded in the books of account, conducted necessary investigation/enquiries and then established the fact of unaccounted payments. Admittedly, in the instant case, the AO has failed to do this exercise. - Decided against revenue.
|