Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 1686 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAMAddition u/s 69C - Held that:- Section 69C would shows that section becomes applicable where the assessee has incurred any expenditure and offers no explanation about the source or the explanation offered by him was not satisfactory. The seized materials, GEQD reports and the statements of the assessee and various persons clearly go to show that the assessee has incurred certain expenditure more than what is stated in the invoices, and the assessee also failed to explain the source for such expenditure. Therefore, it is of the view that AO has rightly invoked and applied section 69C of the Act. The provisions of section 69C do not lay any pre-condition that the books of account should be rejected before invoking the section. CIT(A) has considered section 69C and gave a finding that the assessee has incurred expenditure more than what is stated in the invoice; assessee failed to explain the source for the expenditure. Therefore, Assessing Officer has rightly invoked section 69C of the Act and confirmed his order by the ld.CIT(A). In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, this plea raised by the assessee is rejected. The statement given by Shri A. Viswanadham, sales head of M/s. K.K. Enterprises, dated 10/12/2008 has no relevancy, the same cannot be considered. Therefore, there is no merit in the plea raised by the assessee and the same is deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, we reject the same. The same plea has been raised before the CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) considered the same and observed that assessee has not given any explanation for the source of impugned expenditure incurred. It was only argued that the assessee has not indulged and no explanation was given on indiscriminating material noticed. As argued that sales admitted by the assessee was correct. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) has rejected the alternative plea raised by the assessee. In view of our above finding and also considering the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) in respect of alternative plea with regard to profit element, we find no merit in the plea raised by the assessee, the same is dismissed.
|