Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

ACIT - 17 (2) , Mumbai Versus Shri Nimish S. Joshi

2017 (8) TMI 484 - ITAT MUMBAI

Admission of additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Rules, 1962 - allowing the earlier year peak while considering the computation of peak credit in respect of the impugned assessment year - Held that:- So far the submission of the additional evidence are concerned, the learned D.R. even though referred to the ground of appeal could not convinced as to how the CIT(A) had admitted the additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A. Even the nature of the additional evidence was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g 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. No illegality of infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) directing the AO to allow the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

The only issue involved in this appeal relates to the admission of additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Rules, 1962 and thereby allowing the earlier year peak while considering the computation of peak credit in respect of the impugned assessment year amounting to ₹ 1,86,88,590/-. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the AO on the basis of the information received from the office of the DDIT (Inv) that the assessee has taken accommodation entries from certain parti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r, 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed in response to the notice under section 148. The AO issued notice under section 133(6) to verify the purchases to many of the purchase parties. The notices in respect of the parties given pages 2 & 3 of the assessment order were returned back with the remarks not known , left , etc. for the purchases amounting to ₹ 13,06,78,259/-. The AO asked the assessee to submit the copies of the ledger accounts of the parties from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.201 for working out the peak credit. During .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

out as under: - Financial Year Peak credit as per details filed during assessment proceedings 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 al .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t purchases the 1st lot of goods in cash for which payment is made out of unaccounted cash. The sale corresponding to this is recorder in the books and the realization of the same is in cheque. The appellant then takes bills from the bogus suppliers, issues cheques and takes back equivalent cash. This cash is then used to make the 2nd unaccounted purchase. This modus has been categorically accepted and stated as such by the appellant himself in his sworn statement. The relevant question answers .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng the hearing on 25/02/2016 made an alternate plea that while considering the working of peak credit, the peak of the earlier year i.e. 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 th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tant year is worked out at ₹ 5,71,35,258 instead of ₹ 7,58,23,848. Therefore addition on account of peak credit being the peak unaccounted capital in business is restricted to ₹ 5,71,35,258. 4. Even though notice was duly served none appeared on behalf of the assessee. We, therefore, decided to dispose off this appeal after hearing the learned D.R. After hearing the learned D.R. and going through the order of the tax authorities below we noted that so far the submission of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version