TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mistake was rectified only in the subsequent financial year and that is a reason why as on 31.3.20008 there was an excess of credit balance in the name of the said party. Such an accounting error has been duly appreciated by the Ld. CIT(A) and if that is so, then ostensibly there is no revenue impact, because it has not resulted into any kind of cash inflow and any kind of receipt or income in the hands of the assessee. Such a mistake has duly been rectified in the subsequent year and hence it cannot be held that it is an unexplained credit in the hands of the assessee as on 31.3.2008. What the AO has narrated in the assessment order is only the nature of transaction in assessee’s bank account, that is, one cheque received from M/s. Glo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice to justify the said credit, the assessee submitted that the said amount was received through account payee cheque for the booking of one villa in White Square Green Project , but instead of advance received against booking of villa, it was shown as unsecured loans due to clerical mistake. The AO made inquires by calling for the balance sheet of M/s. Global Solutions (P) Ltd. from the AO of the said company and also issued notice u/s 133(6) to the said company calling for the copy of the account of the assessee in its book for the relevant period. In response the said company furnished the copy of its balance sheet alongwith letter dated 13.12.2010. On perusal of such balance sheet and accompanying letter, AO noted that though the quan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lanation is after thought and gave very detailed reasoning from pages 5 to 8 of the assessment order whereby he held that the amount of ₹ 75 lacs is nothing but unexplained credit in the books of assessee. 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee explained that, firstly, there was a clerical mistake in showing the advance received as unsecured loans and secondly, there was a double entry of the same account as on 13.2.2008 and again on 15.2.2008 in the ledger entry and thus, single receipt of cheque was by mistake was accounted for two times and that is why it resulted into excess outstanding balance or credit of ₹ 75 lacs. When the amount of ₹ 75 lacs was in fact refunded back has acknowledged by the party no addition co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y stated above, rectified in the subsequent year) as on 31.03.2008 cannot be brought to tax as unexplained credit, as done by the A.O. The bank book being relied upon by the A.O., which forms part of the assessment order as Annexure-B, is stated to be only a narration of transactions in the appellant's bank account. In this narration of transactions, the cheque no. 007581 received from M/s Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is reflected only once. Subsequently the appellant company returned this booking amount to M/s Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vide cheque no.136228, which however was returned. These two transactions also find place in the statement of narration of transactions in the bank account, on 27.03.2008 and 28.03.2008. On 31.03.2008, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 75,00,000/- Due to wrongly showing receipt of cheque no.007581 twice by the appellant there was excess credit balance of ₹ 75,00,000/- in the party's account and excess debit of corresponding amount in the bank account. However, as held by Hon'ble Courts, when the mistake is only on account of incorrect posting of entries and no funds have been introduced, i.e. there is no revenue impact, no addition to income on this account can be made (even if the explanation initially furnished by the appellant's AR before the A.O. about the credit balance outstanding in the name of M/s Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd. may not have been a completely satisfactory one). Accordingly, the A.O. is directed to delete the add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... narrated in the assessment order is only the nature of transaction in assessee s bank account, that is, one cheque received from M/s. Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is reflected only once but has failed to took note of the fact that this booking amount was returned and both these transactions is reflected in the bank account on 27.3.2008 and 31.3.2008. Ld. CIT (A) has duly incorporated the relevant transactions as per the bank books from there it is quite clear that receipt of one particular cheque No. 7581 was shown twice. Thus, it was a pure case of posting error in the accounts books and therefore, Ld. CIT(A) was correct on facts deleting the said addition and accordingly, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. In the result appeal filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
