Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 465 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - Unexplained credit-sundry creditor - proof of bogus corresponding sales - HELD THAT:- There is hardly any dispute that this assessee is a wholesale dealer / trader in various electrical items and appliances such as water pumps, fans, coolers, gesysers, home appliances etc.,. It transpires during the course of hearing that neither of the lower authorities has rejected assessee’s corresponding sales nor have they treated assessee’s purchases to be bogus. They simply hold the corresponding parties as bogus sundry creditors. DR fails to dispute that if the corresponding sales and purchases are treated as genuine, the very course of action has to be followed regarding creditors parties in issue in order to avoid inconsistency.We therefore reverse the impugned addition in principle on this count alone. Assessee failure to prove its relevant parties to be genuine - as contended lower authorities have accepted sales of the corresponding items and all this sufficiently proves assessee’s purchases to be genuine - HELD THAT:- We find no substance in assessee’s instant argument as it is assessee’s bounden duty to prove of the purchases in issue by way of leading cogent evidences. The fact also remains whole of the assessee’s purchases cannot be treated as bogus since corresponding sales have already been accepted. We hold in these peculiar facts and circumstances that the impugned purchases deserve to be disallowed @ 12.5% only. We therefore direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the impugned disallowance of ₹1,10,17,324/- to the extent 12.5% thereof only in consequential computation. This former substantive ground is partly accepted in above terms. Capital gains addition - treating assessee’s agricultural land sold to be a capital asset - AO completed his best judgment assessment u/s. 144 - HELD THAT:- The assessee could not produce all the relevant details in the lower appellate proceedings as well. We reiterate that we have already restored the former issue back to the Assessing Officer with specific directions. We therefore deem it appropriate that larger interest would be met in case the Assessing Officer adjudicate the instant issue afresh as per law after affording three effective opportunities to the assessee. This latter substantive ground is accepted for statistical purposes.
|