TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation for such creditors was furnished by the assessee and genuineness of such liabilities was not proved to the satisfaction of the A.O. In view of these facts and circumstances we find no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities and hence, the order of CIT(A) is confirmed. Similar are the facts in other years and additions are also on identical grounds, hence taking a consistent view, we dismiss all these seven appeals of the assessee. - Decided against assessee. - I.T.A. Nos. 695 to 701/Mum/2011 - - - Dated:- 7-4-2016 - SHRI R. C. SHARMA, AM AND SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM For The Appellant by : None For The Respondent : Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh ORDER Per Mahavir Singh, JM: This is a set of seven appeals by the assessee are arising out of common order of CIT(A)-37/I.T-620-623 603-605/ACCC-11/09-10 AY2002-03-2008-09 dated 18.11.2010. Assessments were framed by ACIT, Central Circle-11, Mumbai u/s. 144 r.w.s. 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) for Assessment Years 2002-03 to 2008-09 vide his separate orders all dated 15.12.2009. 2. At the outset, it is noticed from the order sheet entries, in these seven ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red in not considering the fact that in spite of repeated reminders and personal requests made by the appellant company from time to time, the Assessing Officer has not supplied all the seized materials and documents and data in the computer, CDs, CPU, etc. 6. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in not deciding on the action of the Assessing Officer in not supplying the photocopies of the seized materials and documents and data in the computer, CDs, CPU, etc. on the one hand and passing the assessment order ex-parte under Sec. 144 of the Income Tax Act on the other hand by adopting the time-barring limit of 31-12-2009 when the actual time barring limit for completing the assessment u/s. 153A of the I. T. Act was 31-12-2010. 7. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in computing the total income of the appellant company at ₹ 4,68,95,820/-. 8. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of ₹ 2,73,32,513/- as disallowance u/s. 40A(3) and of ₹ 1,43,85,532/- as unaccounted cash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... primary evidence. The appellant has not been able to rebut the aforesaid primary evidences as recorded in the seized material. The AO has made a reasonable addition @ 10% only of the unaccounted sales made by the appellant during the time period 01- 04-2001 to 13-03-2008 relevant to AYs.2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 2008-09. Secondly, the AO has disallowed 20% of the cash payments exceeding ₹ 20,000/- in respect of business carried out by it. No material was furnished, neither before the AO nor before the undersigned to rebut the evidences recorded in the seized material. In the absence of any arguments from the learned AR and in the absence of any written submissions, the AO s arguments have not been controverted. Since the profits gains derived from unaccounted cash sales are liable to be taxed in accordance with the provisions including sec. 40A(3) of the Act, the fact that it is not practicable to comply with the provisions of sec. 40A(3) by making payments by crossed cheque or bank draft in respect of grey market transactions, would not prevent operation of the said sec. 40A(3) of the Act. The fact that it was not possible to establish the iden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e or that confirmations from such creditors were furnished before the AO. The appellant has not been able to prove the genuineness of the aforesaid liabilities in spite of availing sufficient opportunities. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, bogus liabilities have been rightly charged to tax by the AO. Such addition made by the AO with reference to outstanding liabilities are hereby confirmed for AYs.2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 2008-09. Ground of Appeal No. 7 is dismissed for AYs. 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 2008-09. Aggrieved against the action of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeals before us. 6. The first common issue raised by the assessee in its appeals is against the action of CIT(A) confirming the action of AO passing ex parte order u/s. 144 of the Act and also not providing photocopies of the seized materials and documents and data in the computer, CDs, CPU, etc. For this, the assessee has raised grounds 1 to 6 (which are already reproduced above). 7. We find from the assessment order that the A.O. has recorded the fact in respect of the seized documents found from the premises of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ash cannot be said with certainty. It ranges from few thousand rupees to even few lakhs of rupees. Q.9. Have you collected even ₹ 1 lakh to 2 lakh in cash for garment business? Ans. Yes, I have done so. I have collected cash of ₹ 1 - 2 lakhs also. A prima-facie perusal of the Tally data in the computer backup has shown that the cash receipts have not been accounted for in the regular books of accounts. The summary of cheque receipts vis-a-vis cash receipts as evidenced by these 2 registers is as follows : Sr. No. Register No. Cheque Payment Cash Payment Total 1 A1 19922429 11987944 31910373 3 A4 411750 1216617 1628367 Total (Rs.) 20334179 13204561 33538740 Total % 60.63% 39.37% 100% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
