TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. Revenue is in appeal against the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal raising following question for our consideration: Whether decision of ITAT in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,87,46,520/- on account of unverifiable and bogus liability by stating that the same can't be added u/s. 41(1) or Sec. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not perverse particularly in view of the fact that AO disallowed this expenditure after he found it bogus after due inquiry? 2. We have perused the judgements on record with the assistance of learned counsel for the Revenue. We notice that the addition made by the Assessing Officer came to be deleted by the CIT (Appeals) observing that, out of the total liability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as gone through the copies of truck rent payment and it mentioned the name of the persons, truck numbers, weight of material, amount paid to such persons and the complete details. He has also given a finding that on the verification of the Lrs, he found them it to be duly stamped and acknowledged by the buyers of the materials transported by the Assessee and vouchers were maintained in respect of payment to respective truck owners. He has further given a finding that the addition could not have been made either u/s. 68 or Section 41(1) of the Act as the provisions of the Act as the provisions of those sections were not applicable to the facts of the case. Before us, Revenue could not controvert the findings of ld. CIT(A). We further find th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of liability and that therefore, the amount in question cannot be added back as a deemed income under section 41(1) of the Act. This is one of the strange cases where even if the debt itself is found to be non genuine from the very inception, at least in terms of section 41(1) of the Act there is no cure for it. Be that as it may, insofar as the orders of the Revenue authorities are concerned, the Tribunal not having made any error, this Tax Appeal is dismissed. 4. It can thus be seen that the entire issue is based on appreciation of evidence on record. CIT (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal both concurrently found that the assessee had produced sufficient material to establish the claim. The Assessing Officer had raised demands which w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
