Latest - TMI e-Newsletter
New User/ Regiser
2022 (9) TMI 508 - Income Tax
Addition u/s 41(1) - evidences of liability as ceased or has been remitted provided or not? - addition made relying upon the order passed by Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Meerut-II wherein held that purchases made by the Assessee's firm from a sister concern were non-genuine, bogus and there was no real production or movement of goods - CIT(A) allowed the appeal and deleted the said addition of the AO after returning the finding that the books of accounts of the Assessee have not been rejected by the AO and Assessee had filed details of purchases vis-a-vis sales, which figures of sales and purchase were not doubted by the AO - HELD THAT:- The entire basis of the AO for doubting the balance was the order of the Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Meerut-II, and since the very said order has been set aside by the CESTAT and has become final, there can be no doubt that the finding of the AO that the purchases were bogus has no legs to stand on. The finding of the CIT(A) and ITAT that the said liability which was converted into an unsecured loan and subsequently stood repaid has not been challenged by the Revenue in the present appeal.
In the facts of the present case as well as SHRI VARDHMAN OVERSEAS LTD. [2011 (12) TMI 77 - DELHI HIGH COURT] noted above the unsecured loan had not been transferred to profit & loss account by the assessee and it was infact repaid in the subsequent years.
Revenue has also not challenged the findings of the CIT(A) that the two firms had been transacting for many years and had a running account which are fact findings. In light of concurrent findings of fact returned by ITAT and CIT(A), this Court, in view of the aforesaid facts, do not find that any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal and there is no infirmity in the order passed by the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises.