TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessment year under consideration. If the balance is outstanding from earlier year, then, it cannot be a case of making addition u/s 68 in a later year - The balance sheet filed by the assessee, though show the balances at the level stated, but the names of the parties are not given. The explanation tendered before the ld. CIT(A) was not given to the AO, enabling him to examine its veracity w.r.t. the books of accounts. Under such circumstances, we set aside the impugned order on this score and remit the matter to the file of the AO for examining the assessee’s claim - Matter remanded back. Case of the assessee is that the sum of ₹ 3,67,395/- was claimed as deduction in the preceding year which was disallowed by the AO and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs, it was noticed that there was a credit to the tune of ₹ 2,06,91,000/- in the name of Shri Narender Kumar. Vide order sheet entry dated 4.12.2009, the assessee was asked to furnish confirmation from the said party, which was not complied with. The assessee submitted that the said liability was discharged in the subsequent year. In the absence of any documentary evidence substantiating the genuineness of the credit, the AO made addition of ₹ 2,06,91,000/- as unexplained credit, impliedly u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act ). The assessee argued before the ld. CIT(A) that some land was purchased by the assessee from Shri Narender Kumar for a sum of ₹ 18,74,07,000/- which appeared as sto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which a sum of ₹ 1.30 crore was paid during the year, leaving the remaining closing balance at ₹ 2.06/- crore. If this position is correct, then, of course, there can be no addition of ₹ 2.06 crore and odd in the instant year for the reason that it emerged as a part of the opening balance. On a specific query from the Bench, the ld. AR could not draw our attention to any material filed before the AO stating these facts that the said amount of ₹ 2.06 crore was from the brought forward balance. The balance sheet filed by the assessee, though show the balances at the level stated, but the names of the parties are not given. The explanation tendered before the ld. CIT(A) was not given to the AO, enabling him to examine i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d it for taxation and as such there was no controversy. The assessee took up a ground before the ld. CIT(A) challenging the non-taxability of this sum on the ground that the same amount was disallowed by the AO in the preceding year and hence on its reversal, it should not be taxed once again in this year. However, this ground remained undisposed of at the end of the ld. CIT(A). The case of the assessee is that the said sum of ₹ 3,67,395/- was claimed as deduction in the preceding year which was disallowed by the AO and the reversal by means of write back of this amount in the current year could not be charged to tax as it would result in to double taxation of the same amount. In principle, we agree with the contention urged on behalf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
