TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1897X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as already discharged the burden that lay on it by proving the identity, credit worthiness and genuineness of the transactions , and as the A.O. could not find any evidence to contradict the claim of the assessee, we uphold the order of the First Appellate Authority and delete this addition.- Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of "Processing fee" - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- First Appellate Authority has given a categorical finding that there was an error committed by the bank. The HDFC bank had wrongly debited processing fee to the account of M/s Research Co. Book Centre, which is a sister concern of the assessee, instead of the assessee’s bank account. This mistake was latter realised and the processing fee in q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out at para 2 of the Ld.CIT(A) s order are extracted for ready reference. 2. The assessee is a Partnership Firm, carrying on the business of whole sale trading of education research books. The assessee filed its return for the A.Y. under consideration on 27.0.2008 declaring a total income of ₹ 1,23,68,870/-. The case was processed u/s 143(1) and later on selected for scrutiny. Notice u/s 143(2) dt. 4.8.2009 and 29.9.2009 was issued and served upon the assessee. In response to the same, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee attended the assessment proceedings from time to time and filed details. Books of accounts, original bill and vouchers as were called for were produced before the AO. After examining and verifying the same, the AO p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any evidence by the assessee even in additional evidence. 3. Without prejudice the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Processing fee ₹ 740916/- made to being expenditure of a different entity which the CIT (A) has deleted stating that the contentions of the assessee and evidences filed relevant to this claim was verified by the AO which is totally contrary to facts and which has been brought out clearly in the Remand Report. 4. Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition made by invoking provisions of section 2 (22) (e) of the Act of ₹ 27,841/- stating that the AO has not clearly brought out pertinently that the conditions laid down in section 2 (22) (e) are fulfilled when the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .O. during the assessment proceedings. 7.2. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the return of income was filed by the assessee on 27.9.2008 and that upto 21.1.2010, the AO did not take any action and that it was only in October, 2010, the hearings commenced and a show cause notice was issued to the assessee and the assessment was completed within a period of two months. He pointed out that the Ld.CIT(A) at para 5 recorded that the assessee filed whatever details that were available with him within the short period and was in the process of collecting further details and documents and that the AO in the meanwhile completed the assessment. 8. We find that the AO had vide order sheet entry dt. 13.12.2010 asked the assessee for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the assessee, in respect of enhancement of cash credit limit. 10.1. In view of the above evidences the First Appellate Authority has deleted the disallowance. We find no reason to interfere in the same. Hence this ground is dismissed. 10.2. As regards addition u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act, the First Appellate Authority deleted the addition for the reason that the assessee company s business, is the same as the business of M/s Arihant Literary Works Pvt.Ltd. and M/s Researchco Book Periodicals Pvt.Ltd. and that an advance of loan made in the ordinary course of business, does not fall within the purview of S.2(22)(e) of the Act. Further he held that the assessee is not a registered share holder of M/s Arihant Literary Works Pvt.Ltd. or M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aterial who come to a conclusion that the evidence filed by the assessee cannot be accepted. The assessee has discharged the burden of proof that lay on it. 10.5. In the case of Anand Minda, an amount of ₹ 20 lakhs was taken and the same was returned on 30.7.2007. The copy of the income tax return of Anand Minda was filed which disclosed that he had declared income of ₹ 22,88,259/-. 10.6. In the case of HJ Book Agency, the PAN numbers and copy of return of income were also filed. The assessee received ₹ 4,12,40,000/- from the said party and this amount along with the opening balance was returned during the year. HJ Book Agency declared income of ₹ 16,64,162/-. The assessee filed confirmation letters. The detail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
