Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 853 - AT - Income TaxAddition of unexplained payable sundry creditors - as alleged identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions had not been proved during assessment proceedings - HELD THAT:- We note that there is a difference between credit representing a liability payable by the assessee and a credit representing monies received from another person. It is because of this distinction a liability which arises as a consequence of any purchase resulting in a corresponding credit to the account of the supplier cannot be added u/s. 68 We note the entire turnover on transportation of ₹ 11,70,63,030/- has been accepted by the AO as genuine, so question of addition of the sum of ₹ 78,22,863/- which represented the liability to pay the truck owners by assessee cannot be added u/s. 68. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and we agree that section 68 was wrongly invoked in the present case in respect of the outstanding liability payable by the assessee to the truck owners. - dismissed ground of appeal of the revenue. Addition on account of showing low bilty charges - assessee failed to produce any books of account - HELD THAT:- Assessee had already declared bilty charges which is 0.98% of the total receipt. As brought to our notice that in the previous assessment year 2013-14 when the freight receipt was ₹ 8,.10,32,496/- bilty charges was ₹ 8,65,025/- which was 1.06% whereas in this assessment year 2014-15 freight receipt was ₹ 11,70,63,030/- bilty charges was reflected by the assessee at ₹ 11,55,100/- which is 0.99%. The assessee has produced all the books of account etc. without finding any defect or irregularities therein, the AO ought not to have gone for estimation of income, without rejecting the books as per the procedure prescribed u/s. 145(3) read with sec. 144 and, therefore, the action of the AO was arbitrary in nature and so vitiated, therefore, the action of the CIT(A) who after due verification made by him does not require any interference from our part and, therefore, we confirm the action of CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of appeal of revenue.
|