TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee on 30.11.2011 - When there were no unsecured loans appearing therein there was no question of any addition being made on the ground of any unsecured loan. Disallowance u/s 40A(3) – Held that:- The cash book produced by the assessee ought to have been considered - It is also noted that in the original assessment, Assessing Officer had made an addition under section 40A(3) considering withdrawals from the Bank account, which was deleted by the ld. CIT(Appeals), but substituted by him with the chart compiled from the cash book produced - Neither any withdrawal from Bank account could be considered as expenditure for the purpose of applying section 40A(3) of the Act, nor the payment shown in the cash book produced on 23.11.2011 for the purpose of applying section 40A(3) of the Act – Decided in favour of assessee. - I. T. A. No. 658/Kol./2013 - - - Dated:- 19-12-2013 - Shri Mahavir Singh And Shri Abraham P. George,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate For the Respondent : Dr. Swetabh Suman, CIT ORDER Per Abraham P. George : 1. This appeal filed by the assessee is against an order dated 22 n d January, 2013 of Commissioner of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiating the purchases and payments effected. Assessee filed copies of ledger pages of some of the parties, though it was unable to produce the bills. Assessee, however, furnished on 07.12.2011, names and addresses of the parties from whom material was purchased. Departmental Inspectors were deputed to verify the genuinity of purchases and after enquiry Departmental Inspectors reported that some of the parties were not related to the business of assessee for supplying any materials, and some others could not be found in the given address. Later on, assessee produced copies of his account as appearing in the ledgers of the sellers, but the Assessing Officer was rel uctant to accept it. According to him, handwritings in these ledger accounts were similar to the handwriting of Shri Gurupada Dutta, accountant of the assessee. One of the sundry creditors, namely Shri Gurupada Dutta summoned by the Assessing Officer, mentioned that the confirmation letter produced by the assessee was not that of his business. It seems, he also denied the signature. In a nutshell Assessing Officer declined to accept the explanation given by the assessee and declined to consider the cash book produced by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax returns, Voter I-Card of vendors, were all produced for proving the genuineness of the entries. However, ld. CIT(Appeals) was not appreciative of these contentions. According to him, cash expenses both small as well as big were shown all along in the cash book produced on 23.11.2011, whereas in the subsequent cash book the expenditures were spread over a limited period covering December, 2008 to March, 2009. As per ld. CIT(Appeals), the evidence produced did not show that any entries relating to any partnership firm were mixed up in its cash book. Assessee also failed to produce the auditor despite being directed to do so. He, therefore, concluded that Assessing Officer was justified in treating the cash book produced on 23.11.2011 as the correct one. Assessee having failed to substantiate the unsecured loans of Rs.57,00,000/- appearing therein, the addition according to him was rightly done by the Assessing Officer. 8. Now before us, ld. AR strongly assailing the orders of the authorities below submitted that the cash book furnished by his representative on 23.11.2011 was of a different entity. According to him, assessee himself had appeared before the Assessing Officer on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... books. Opening cash balance in both sets were same. Various debtors also tallied. What happened was that in original cash book assessee had made purchases and paid for it then and there. Since there was no cash balance available, it had shown personal loans. Later on, when the Assessing Officer required details of personal loans, assessee fragmented the payments to such parties and postponed it to dates subsequent to the receipt of contract payments. Effectively assessee had juggled it's accounts to avoid personal loans. Assessee could not show any cogent reason as to why original cash book should be disbelieved. 10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Short question before us is whether cash book produced on 23.11.2011 or cash book produced on 30.11.2011 is to be believed. If the cash book produced on 30.11.2011 is believed, then there is no question of any unsecured loans, since such cash book admittedly did not reflect any such loans. On the other hand, if the cash book produced on 23.11.2011 is accepted as correct one, there indeed entered in it are entries showing unsecured loans of Rs.57,00,000/-, which remained unexplained. What we notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
