Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Smt. Priti Bansidhar Mehta and others Versus The ITO 25 (2) (2) , BKC Mumbai and others

2015 (6) TMI 454 - ITAT MUMBAI

Bogus purchases - CIT(A) deleted the addition made on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C in relation to the purchases - Held that:- All the payments have been made through cheque, which have been duly certified by the IDBI bank. Also find that the AO has not brought anything on record to disbelieve the explanation of the assessee. The only evidence/reference made by the AO is that the assessee has not provided PAN No. of the parties. This cannot be the sole reason for disbelieving the e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

; 3,00,000/- have been made on 18.2.2010, ₹ 3,24,721/- was paid on 12.10.2010. Similarly in the case of Sandesh Sales Corporation, the payment has been made on 31.12.2009, Shakti Trading Company the payment has been made on 2.5.2009, 29.5.2009, 18.12.2009 and 3.2.2010. Similarly, all the transporters mentioned hereinabove have been paid in subsequent years. The payment made is evident from the copies of the ledger account. As the creditors have been paid in the subsequent years, it cannot .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

J ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: These are cross appeals by the assessee and the Revenue against the very same order of the Ld. CIT(A)-35,Mumbai dt. 12.8.2014 pertaining to assessment year 2009-10. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that original assessment made in the case of the assessee travelled upto the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its order dt. 29.8.2012 in ITA No. 4000/M/2012 had set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the matter back to him for passing a fresh order. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ransport - 695510 8. Irfan Transport - 629091 9. Shakti Trading Co. 128894 980384 10. K.J. Transport - 480000 11. Sandesh Sales Corpn. 368508 666977 12. Mahesh Transport - 631088 13. Navdeep Trading Co. 2455711 2307571 14. Padmavati Corporation 1117212 1117212 15. Om Corporation 1615935 1145482 16. Vaibhav Transport 438901 3.1. Notices u/s. 133(6) of the Act were issued to these parties which were returned back unserved. The assessee was asked to establish the genuineness of the purchases. In th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

further verification, the AO deputed Ward Inspector who submitted that the following parties do not exist. S. No. Name of the party Serial number in the list available with this office Remarks 1. Siddhivinayak Corporation 578 VAT Cancelled 2. Hetal Sales Corporation 201 VAT Cancelled 3. Naman Enterprises 333 VAT Cancelled 4. Shakti Trading Co. 515 VAT Cancelled 5. Sandesh Sales Corpn. VAT Cancelled 6. Navdeep Trading Co. 337 VAT Cancelled 7. Padmavati Corporation VAT Cancelled 8. Om Corporation .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

wo additions, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A). It was strongly contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has discharged the onus of proving that she had genuinely made the purchases, made the payments for the same and had used the same to make sales to parties. After considering the facts and the submissions and the past history of the case in the first round of appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) was convinced that in so far as the purchases from the listed 7 parties are concer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d. CIT(A) directed for the deletion of the addition of ₹ 90,07,915/-. 4.1. In so far as the addition on account of remission of liability is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee had balance outstanding with the parties. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that during the course of the last 3 years the assessee has been making payments for which evidence has been provided and the balance that is left to be paid is only ₹ 36,29,281/-. Since the assessee has not brought any .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

letion of the addition made on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C in relation to the purchases of ₹ 90,07,915/-. Section 69C read as under: Where in any financial year an assessee has incurred any expenditure and he offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure or part thereof, or the explanation, if any, offered by him is not, in the opinion of the (Assessing) Officer, satisfactory, the amount covered by such expenditure or part thereof, as the case may be, may be de .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n made through cheque, which have been duly certified by the IDBI bank. The certificate is placed at pages 40 & 41 of the paper book. We also find that the AO has not brought anything on record to disbelieve the explanation of the assessee. The only evidence/reference made by the AO is that the assessee has not provided PAN No. of the parties. This cannot be the sole reason for disbelieving the explanation of the assessee, when the payments have been made by cheque duly reflected in the bank .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version