TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 550X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for interpretation in this appeal - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA 132/2011, C.M. APPL.1020/2011 - - - Dated:- 2-12-2013 - S. Ravindra Bhat And Najmi Waziri,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Rohit Madan, Advocate. ORDER Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat (Open Court) 1. The assessee in this appeal under Section 268 of the Income Tax Act urges that two questions of law arises for consideration. The first, it is submitted, pertains to the correctness of the ITAT directions to add Rs.22 lakhs towards alleged bogus freight and forwarding expenditure by an estimating exercise. The second question of law urged is that the lower authority fell into error in adding Rs.6,84,22,8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s.22 lakhs goes, the Assessing Officer and the higher authorities fell into error in relying solely on the testimony and deposition of one Vineet Bhargava who stated that the freight expenses did not reflect actual expenditure or transactions. It was sought to be highlighted that the pre condition for adding back such amounts or disallowing the expenditure so that it could attract Section 68 was the exactitude with which the transaction could be pin pointed. The counsel further submitted that the deposition of Vaibhav Bhargava cannot be termed as conclusive in these circumstances since the answer to question no.5 relied upon by the Assessing Officer and other officials nowhere indicated that the expenditure he was referring to pertains to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d towards the credit balance. However, the appellant s submission today appears to be that this credit balance had been reflected in the previous years books and also subjected to assessment. That too in the opinion of this Court cannot be determinative because as on 14.02.2001 as well as in the revised income tax returns and the relative supporting documents filed by the assessee, said amount appeared and was claimed. That such amount remained unchallenged in the previous proceedings, in the opinion of this Court, no way shifted the burden of proving what the appellant claimed as a credit of Rs.6,84,22,895/- as on the date of search and seizure. It was concededly unable to substantiate such credit in favour of third party concerned, i.e., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
