TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . So far as giving of the peak credit for the earlier year while working out the peak credit of the impugned assessment year in respect of the same party we noted that the AO while working out the incremental credit for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 in the aforesaid assessment year itself has allowed the credit for the preceding assessment year. Since in the impugned assessment year the AO has not considered the peak credit of A.Y. 2008-09 and taken A.Y. 2009-10 peak as first year, therefore the AO has in our view has committed a mistake. The method of computation of peak credit had even been accepted by the AO while working out the peak credit for subsequent assessment years which is apparent from para 4.1.20 of the assessment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39,528/-, ₹ 8,51,46,118/- and ₹ 7,03,53,023/- for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 2011-12, respectively. However, independent enquiries initiated during the course of assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2010-11 have revealed that in addition to the parties mentioned in the report of the DDIT, the assessee has taken accommodation entries aggregating to ₹ 5,07,60,613/- from eight more parties. As a result the peak credit has been worked out at ₹ 7,58,23,848/-, ₹ 10,47,43,397/- and ₹ 8,17,90,409/- for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. Accordingly the incremental peak credit for A.Y. 2010-11 was worked out at ₹ 2,89,19,549/- and added back under section 69C. The AO, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eedings Incremental credit (Rs. ) 2008-09 7,58,23,848/- 7,58,23,848/- 2009-10 10,47,43,397/- 2,89,19,549/- 2010-11 8,17,90,409/- Nil The AO, therefore, added a sum of ₹ 7,58,23,848/- in the impugned assessment year. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after hearing the assessee and going through his statements found that there were purchases from these parties during A.Y. 2008-09 also and the peak credits during A.Y. 2008-09 were to the extent of ₹ 1,86,88,590/-. He, therefore, allowed the credit in respect of peak c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . A.Y. 2008-09 also needs to be given credit for as the purchases are made from same hawala dealers in earlier years also. I find that the AO has not given credit for the unaccounted cash at the beginning of the year to the appellant. I am inclined to agree with the alternate plea of the appellant simply because the appellant has unaccounted case pertaining to the earlier year in his hands as on 01/04/2008 (1st day of this previous year) to make unaccounted purchases at the beginning of this year. I therefore request the appellant to submit the working of peak from A.Y. 2008-09 to 2011-12. Thus the revised working of peak credit is as follows: - Assessment Year Peak credit of the year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0-11 and 2011-12 in the aforesaid assessment year itself has allowed the credit for the preceding assessment year. Since in the impugned assessment year the AO has not considered the peak credit of A.Y. 2008-09 and taken A.Y. 2009-10 peak as first year, therefore the AO has in our view has committed a mistake. The method of computation of peak credit had even been accepted by the AO while working out the peak credit for subsequent assessment years which is apparent from para 4.1.20 of the assessment order. In view of this fact we do not find any illegality of infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) directing the AO to allow the credit for the peak of ₹ 1,86,88,590/- pertaining to the earlier year, i.e. A.Y. 2008-09. Accordingly the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
