Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 199 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained investment in stock - difference in the stock statement submitted to the bank as compared to the stock statement furnished to the AO during the course of assessment proceedings - Held that:- We find that before the ld. CIT(A) as well as before the Assessing Officer, assessee has duly explained that difference amount of ₹ 5,10,30,357/-, which has been added by the Assessing Officer, was firstly, on account of plant & machinery of ₹ 3,64,66,010/- which has been shown in Schedule VIII of the balance sheet; and secondly, advance to the suppliers shown at ₹ 1,45,64,347/- reflected in Schedule XI of the balance sheet. Thus, there is no such difference apparently in the value of closing stock. It is also an admitted fact that there is no difference in the quantum and in the actual value of the closing stock as appearing in the books of account and there is no cash element on such difference because the amount aggregating to ₹ 5,10,30,357/- is on account of payment given to the suppliers for purchase/expenses incurred through account payee cheques from the bank account and such payments have been shown as amount recoverable and no expenses including purchase have been debited to the profit & loss account, therefore, there is no effect on the profit of the assessee-company for assessment year 2007-08 qua this amount.Thus, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) in deleting the addition - Decided in favour of assessee Unexplained credit on account of share application money received from four entities - Held that:- As the assessee submitted that assessee would be in a position to produce these persons and in the interest of justice the matter should be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer, because assessee has given all the relevant documents to prove all the three limbs of proving the nature and source of credit, i.e., identity; genuineness and creditworthiness. Simply because Directors or the authorized persons from the said company could not be produced, no adverse inference could have been drawn. Looking to the entire fats and circumstances of the case and on the basis of the plea taken by the ld. counsel for the assessee and in the interest of substantial justice, we feel that the issue of share application money of ₹ 90 lakhs should be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer and assessee will try to produce the concerned from the said entities to confirm the said transaction. Addition on basis of documents found in search - Held that:- A document was seized from the premises of the assessee which mentioned sale transaction of land which reflected that property was registered for a consideration of ₹ 21.25 lakhs and other expenses like stamp duty of ₹ 1,64,300/-. In the said seized document, there is a figure of “62” which has been read as ₹ 62 lakhs which has been presumed to be made in cash. We at the outset agree that the presumption is raised against the assessee in terms of section 132(4A) and 292C that documents belongs to the assessee and onus is upon the assessee to rebut such presumption, however such a presumption is a rebuttal presumption which assessee has to explain with cogent evidence that it belongs to someone else, but here assessee has only denied the transaction without rebutting it by way of proper evidence. However, in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that, since no proper opportunity was given by the Assessing Officer, therefore, the matter should be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine this issue afresh
|