9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt from one of the customers. (ii) That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts in upholding the estimated addition of Rs. 25,000/- out of total vehicle expenses of Rs. 1,11,208/- (iii) That the assessee may be allowed to add / delete/ amend / alter / substitute any ground(s) of appeal on or before the date of hearing. 3. Apropos addition of Rs. 5.20 lacs Assessee company was engaged in the business of civil construction. In the course of assessment, AO has examined the unsecured loans and advances received during the year. From this examination AO found that assessee company has claimed to have received an advance of Rs. 5.20 lacs from Shri Udai Vir Singh. However, the Assessee could not provide confirmation from him. In these circumstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has duly given the name, address and PAN No. of the creditors to the AO. Assessee was not in a position to obtain the confirmation from the party. However, the said amount was repaid by cheque in the next financial year. In these circumstances, he submitted that assessee has discharged its onus and hence, he submitted that no addition u/s. 68 is maintainable. 6.1 Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand submitted that assessee has not discharged its onus. She supported the orders of the authorities below. She further placed reliance of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of C.I.T. vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. 342 ITR 169. 6.2 We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such a conclusion was unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence. If the conclusion was based on some evidence on which a conclusion could be arrived at, no question of law as such arose. The High Court was right in refusing to state a case." 6.3 In this case we find that the names, address and PAN of the creditors was known to the Revenue, still the AO has insisted on the assessee to furnish the confirmation and in the absence thereof, he made the addition u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act. In our considered opinion, assessee has duly discharged its onus. If the AO was not satisfied, he could have summoned the creditor by issuing the notice u/s. 131 of the I.T. Act. In this case we note that AO has not done this exercise. In such a situation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
