Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 191 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of bogus/non existing liabilities - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:-CIT(A) while deleting the addition has noted that he has gone through the copies of truck rent payment and it mentioned the name of the persons, truck numbers, weight of material, amount paid to such persons and the complete details. He has also given a finding that on the verification of the LRs, he found them it to be duly stamped and acknowledged by the buyers of the material transported by the Assessee and vouchers were maintained in respect of payment to respective truck owners. He has further given a finding that the addition could not have been made either u/s. 68 or Section 41(1) of the Act as the provisions of those sections were not applicable to the facts of the case. Before us, Revenue could not controvert the findings of ld. CIT(A). See CIT vs. Bhogilal Ramjibhai Atara [2014 (2) TMI 794 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ] wherein held Section 41(1) of the Act would apply in a case where there has been remission or cessation of liability during the year under consideration subject to the conditions contained in the statute being fulfilled – Decided against Revenue. Addition of carting expenses - CIT(A) restricted the addition - Held that:- CIT(A) while granting relief has noted the expenditure to be essential for the normal business activity of the Assessee and that the labour engaged in the process needs to be paid in cash and their names address and confirmations for the entire expenditure cannot be expected from the Assessee. He accordingly restricted the disallowance to ₹ 1 lac as against 3,62,785/- made by the A.O. Before us, no fallacy has been pointed out in the findings of ld. CIT(A). In view of these facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A)– Decided against Revenue. Addition on account of bogus purchases - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- CIT(A) while deleting the addition has noted that Assessee had furnished the copy of purchase bills, the details of payment made to those parties and sales being made out of the said purchases. He has also noted that there is no evidence to suggest that the payments made were reverted back to the Assessee. He accordingly deleted the addition. Before us, no fallacy has been pointed out in the order of ld. CIT(A). We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) – Decided against Revenue. Addition on account of difference in the balances - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- We find that ld. CIT(A) while deleting the addition has noted that Atul Ltd. is a debtor and not a creditors in the books of Assessee and therefore no addition could be made merely because there was a difference between the account of two concerns. Before us, Revenue has not pointed out any fallacy in the order of ld CIT(A) – Decided against Revenue.
|