Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (6) TMI 358

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 83,81,902/- made u/s 41(1) of the Act on account of cessation of liability appearing in the name of Shri Amit Kumar, Prop. Singla Trading Co." 3. These cases came up for hearing for the first time on 25.1.2012 and the hearing was adjourned to various dates on 9.4.2012, 9.5.2012, 26.6.2012, 30.8.2012, 28.10.2012 and 21.1.2013 mainly at the request of the ld. counsel of the assessee. Thereafter the Bench did not function on 14.2.2013 and 4.4.2013. The cases were ultimately fixed for hearing for today i. 5.6.2013 and notice through RPAD was issued again but neither anybody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application for adjournment has been moved. In these circumsta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ho were the Accountants. Further Shri Amit Kumar has obtained loan from ICICI Bank through the assessee who is W M Agent of the bank and stood guarantor of Shri Amit Kumar. A letter from ICICI bank was furnished before the ld. CIT(A) showing that the assessee might have to pay. 6 The ld. DR for the revenue was heard. 7 After considering the submissions of the ld. DR for the revenue and the relevant material, we find that this issue has been adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A) vide paras 1.14 and 1.15 which are as under: "The issue is considered. The facts are that the AO noted that trading liability of Rs. 83,81,902/- in the name of M/s Singla Trading Co. Pehowa was ceased since the Prop. of the concern alongwith all the family members expired .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tained and hence is directed to be deleted. " We are of the opinion that the ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue correctly because some legal heirs may later on make the claim against the receivables by Singla Trading Co. Moreover the assessee may be liable to pay to the bank and in any case the assessee has not written off the amount during the year, therefore, the liability cannot be said to have ceased. In this background we find nothing wrong in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and confirm the same. 8. Appeal of the Department is dismissed. ITA No. 1209/Chd/2011-Assessee's appeal 9 This appeal is late by two days since the appeal is of two days late and therefore, the same is condoned. 10 Following grounds have been raised by the asses .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... butable to the decline of rate of rice basmati due to which he had to sale opening stock @ Rs. 2789/- per qtl. as against the valuation thereof at Rs. 3947/- per qtl. At the outset it is noted that no evidence in support of this claim has been brought on record. Further it is noted that rates of paddy basmati would have also declined steeply being the raw material for manufacturing rice basmati but the appellant declared GP @ 21.35% in the trading account of paddy basmati. It is worth to mention that the appellant has shown opening stock of paddy basmati at 2475 qtls which was valued at Rs. 23,87,221/-. The plea of the appellant is, therefore, not tenable/verifiable and hence is rejected. The AO estimated the income by applying GP at 5% as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... /s Lachhi Ram Ramesh Chand in response to the summons, confirmed that no balance was outstanding in their books. Accordingly the Assessing Officer concluded that there is no liability by the assessee to M/s Lachhi Ram Ramesh Chand, Pehowa and the sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- was added to the income u/s 41(1) of the Act. 16 On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that though the firm has given account statement to the Assessing Officer but no such statement was given to the assessee. It was submitted that the firm was at fault as it wrongly squared up account by showing cash receipt and the assessee had not paid any cash. 17 . The CIT(A) adjudicated the issue in para 1.16 and 1.17 of impugned order which read as under: "Another liabili .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates