TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances, we are of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be provided one more opportunity to discharge its burden of proof in respect of the creditor. Accordingly, we restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the issue afresh in accordance to law. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purpose. - ITA No. 1926/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 4-3-2016 - SH. I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant by Sh. Satyen Sethi, Adv. For The Respondent by Sh. A.K. Saroha, CIT(DR) ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 07.01.2013 of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of one of the Directors Sh. Radhe Shyam Gupta, some loose cheques of M/s. Shivalik Enterprises (HUF), duly signed, were found and seized. The ld. Assessing Officer was of the opinion that M/s. Shivalik Enterprises(HUF) who was appearing as creditors in the books of account of the assessee, had not supplied the goods to the assessee and it has provided only accommodation entries to the assessee. In the books of account of the assessee, a credit balance of ₹ 38,55,557/- was appearing in the name of M/s. Shivalik Enterprises(HUF). The assessee explained that the said party left some signed blank cheques with the Director of the assessee company which was to be given to their representatives on their instructions and representative along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly an accommodation entry. In view of the above facts, the Assessing Officer held that the credit of ₹ 38,55,557/- was unexplained and he added the same under Section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee failed to comply with three ingredients of Section 68 and the assessee failed to discharge the onus casted upon him under the provisions of Section 68 and, therefore, he confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assessee is before us. 3. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that M/s. Shivalik Enterprises (HUF) was a regular supplier of the raw material and the outstanding balance of the creditors was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remaining purchases of ₹ 2,97,13,600/- was accepted. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the purchases were not genuine. He further submitted that it is well settled law that the transaction cannot be rejected in part and therefore after having accepted the purchases from M/s. Shivalik Enterprises (HUF), the Assessing Officer was not justified in holding part purchases from very same party as bogus. The ld. Authorized Representation further proposed that Section 68 was not applicable to the purchases. In support of his proposition, he relied on judgement of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs Pancham Dass Jain 156 Taxman 507. In fourth proposition, as regard to the ingredients of Section 68, ld. Authorized Representat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lower authorities have already brought on record the evidence that the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction were not established in the case of the assessee. 7. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on record. We would like to first deal the fourth proposition of the ld AR. The ld AR states that the assessee has already discharged its Burdon of proof regarding identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the creditor, however, the ld CIT DR has disputed this statement of the ld AR. We find from the order of the ld CIT(A) that as regards to the identity, even permanent account number (PAN) or was balance sheet etc of the assessee were not provided. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eady restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer , the AO is directed to examine whether the purchases in the case have been found bogus or not and thereafter, he is directed to take action in view of the judgement of the CIT Vs Panchamdas Jain (supra) accordingly. As regards , the second proposition of the ld AR that part of the purchases from the creditor are only held as unexplained, we hold that the issue of examination whether the purchases in dispute are explained or not has been restored to the file of the AO for determination afresh, the proposition is thus rendered infructuous and not require our adjudication. As regards to the first proposition that the purchases in dispute pertained to earlier assessment year is conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
