Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 395 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - doubt on realization of debtors - As submitted assessee could not furnish the required details due to sad demise of her husband who looked after the business and the entire financial transactions - HELD THAT:- Normally, in India, it is an accepted practice that husband looks after the business and financial transactions of the wife. AO also has not disputed this fact - though the assessee has stated that the information was also available with the auditor, the auditor has withdrawn the case from representation and the business was discontinued and the accountant also has left the job. Apart from the above, the building where the records were stated to be maintained was sold away and records were destroyed. All the above reasons appear to be convincing reasons for non-submission of the details. In the instant case, the AO has neither examined the auditor who had represented the case earlier and also did not dispute the fact that the financial transactions were looked after by her husband. In addition the Ld.Pr.CIT as well as the AO has called for the details after the lapse of six years from the end of relevant assessment year. All the above reasons appear to be genuine and convincing for non-submission of the details. Thus, we hold that the reasons explained by the Ld.AR are the convincing reasons for non-submission of the details. Therefore, in our considered opinion the case needs to be decided as per the information available in the statement of affairs A.Y. 2007-08 - contention of the assessee that the realization of debtors was from the outstanding balance appears to be correct. The AO has neither doubted the opening balances of debtors and the closing balances of debtors and the reduction of outstanding debtors. Therefore, there is no reason to suspect the realization of debtors, hence, there is no case for making the addition. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and delete the addition made by the AO. The appeal of the assessee is allowed . A.Y.2008-09 - Since the advances were reduced as at the end of the year, the same clearly shows that the source for investment was realisation of advances from land advances and other debtors. Therefore, there is no reason to suspect the source of investment and the cash flow, hence, there is no case for making the addition. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and delete the addition made by the AO. The appeal of the assessee is allowed
|