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 330 - AT - Income TaxUnaccounted cash credit - addition u/s 68 - Held that:- In the instant case, although the loan creditors are Private Limited Companies neither they have maintained accounts nor filed their return of income on the ground that the entire financial affairs of the companies/entities of the group were in the total mess, therefore, the genuineness of the transactions and capacity of the loan creditors are doubtful. Therefore, the various case decisions relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee including the decision of the ITO Vs. Jai Bajrang Ginning and Pressing Pvt. Ltd. (2011 (12) TMI 511 - ITAT PUNE) are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the above, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and the grounds raised by the assessee on this issue are dismissed. - Decided against assessee. Disallowance of purchases - assessee could not produce the bank account of those parties - CIT(A) deleted the addition in respect of the 3 parties from whom the assessee had made purchases and which was doubted by the AO - Held that:- As find from the assessment order that the main grievance of the AO in the assessment order that although the assessee had made the payments to the above parties by account payee cheque, however, since the assessee could not produce the bank account of those suppliers, therefore, it is not clear as to whether cash has been withdrawn after the cheques were deposited. We find the AO in the remand report has mentioned that complete details/evidences in respect of the purchases effected from the said 2 concerns were furnished. He has not raised any such doubt now. Copy of the remand report has already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the additions made on account of purchases from the above 2 parties. So far as the argument of DR that the parties did not appear before the AO is concerned, we find this was not the case of the AO. It was the doubt of the AO that the assessee might have withdrawn cash from those bank accounts after making payment through account payee cheques since 133(6) notices were returned unserved. He has no other doubts. Since the AO in the remand report has specifically mentioned that the assessee has filed the complete details/evidence in respect of the purchases effected from the said 2 concerns, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). We also concur with the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) that in absence of the impugned purchases it would not have been possible to attain the sales made and the inventory maintained. - Decided against revenue.
|