Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 363 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained cash deposits as against Sale proceeds - income from undisclosed sources u/s.69 - Held that:- Only if the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in making available necessary evidence to the Assessing Officer or the assessment was improperly framed by the Assessing Officer by either not allowing adequate opportunity to the assessee or by not considering the relevant material, then the matter can be restored for a fresh decision. Thus it has to be decided by the appellate authorities in each and every case distinctly as to whether the addition made for non-compliance on the part of the assessee at the assessment stage be sustained or the assessee be allowed a fresh opportunity to make up the deficiency in the second round. However in the interests of natural justice, the undersigned had provided a second opportunity to the appellant to lead evidence in the matter. However he has miserably failed to establish the genuineness of his claim that he had made cash sales in the year under reference - Decided against assessee. Disallowance of commodity loss as speculative loss - Held that:- As decided in M/S VARSHA CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS DCIT (OSD) -9 (1) , MUMBAI [2015 (6) TMI 124 - ITAT MUMBAI] for the assessment year 2009-10 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has held that the loss to be speculative in nature and not business loss. Purchases of scrap as bogus purchases - Held that:- If the purchases were bogus then how the assessee had made corresponding sales which have not been disturbed by the AO and therefore stood accepted. However the fact remains that the appellant has not furnished the copies of invoices and complete names/addresses of the suppliers and corroborative evidence for transportation of the material. Accordingly to plug possible leakage of revenue and meet ends of justice, a token disallowance of ₹ 2,50,000/- is sustained. Accordingly direct the AO to restrict the addition to ₹ 2,50,000/- on this account instead of ₹ 40,61,348/- made by him. This ground of appeal is partly allowed.
|