Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 383 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - loan amount / advance money - accommodation entries - transactions with an entity who was unregistered firm, the Stock Exchange Board of India, SEBI had barred its director from capital market - HELD THAT:- Action of SEBI has no bar on the issue before us as all these are subsequent developments than the relevant accounting period and more so when we are adjudicating identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the assessee’s advance payments received from the said entity. - further, the mere fact of the said entity not having filed its return does not prove not fatal to the assessee’s explanation proving identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the advance receipts. Additions towards alleged bogus loan - HELD THAT:- Assessee; holder of RNI licence on behalf of M/s Disha Productions & Media Pvt. Ltd as an individual, had received the impugned sum from M/s Darpan Publication. One of the said entity director (supra) also appeared and confirmed the assessee’s case before the AO to this effect. We conclude in this fact that the lower authorities have erred in treating the impugned sum in assessee’s hands as unexplained cash credits. The same is directed to be deleted. Disallowance u/s 40A - cash payments - HELD THAT:- AO remand report itself is very very clear that none of the assessee’s cash payments has exceeded the threshold limit of ₹20,000/- during the course of a day so as to trigger the impugned disallowance. We therefore delete the same for this precise reason alone. Disallowance of business expenditure treated as bogus - it was submitted that, assessee has shown gross profit @ 35% on the impugned cost of disallowance which has gone up to 67% giving rise to an absurd result in case both the lower authorities’ action is upheld. - HELD THAT:- The fact also remains that the assessee himself has not been able to prove one to one matching of impugned material purchases and the respective payee’s books. We therefore deem hold in this peculiar factual backdrop that a lump sum addition of ₹7 lac would meet the ends of justice with a rider that the same shall not be taken as a precedent any other case or assessment year; as the case may be
|