TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed only to the extent of ₹ 2,54,550/- and I hold and direct accordingly. - Decided partly in favour of assessee - ITA No.2533/Bang/2018 - - - Dated:- 14-11-2018 - Shri Jason P Boaz, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri. Gangadhara Shastry, Income Tax Consultant For the Revenue : Shri. Inder Solanki, JCIT ORDER PER JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-7, Bangalore dated 09.07.2018 for Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal, are as under: 2.1 These are the second round of proceedings in the case on hand. In the first round, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal vide its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial Co. Ltd., and M/s.S.I.International Co.,. The AO made the addition on the ground that the assessee failed to produce the confirmation of the creditor. It is pertinent to note that this amount was shown as credit for the financial year 2005-06 and continued as carried forward till this year, then it would not be a case of credit entries in the books of account of the assessee during the year under consideration. Therefore, when no cash credit was entered into books of account during the year under consideration, then no addition u/s 68 of the Act can be made in respect of this amount of credit balance shown in the books of account. As regards the genuineness of the transaction is concerned, if the assessee failed to prove the exist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered. The appellant M/s Associate Impex (Proprietorship Concern of the appellant P Venkatesan) purchased glasses valued at ₹ 7,79,550 from M/s Beijia Industrial Company Ltd and in turn supplied the same to M/s Associated Safety Glasses Pvt Ltd. These glasses were found to be defective by M/s Associated Safety Glasses Pvt Ltd. As per the tripartite settlement reached between t these three parties on l0-01-2008 (a copy of settlement pasted above) the final due amount of ₹ 5,25,000 from the appellant to the supplier M/s Beijia Industrial Company Ltd was agreed to be paid by M/s Associated Safety Glasses Pvt Ltd directly to M/s Beijia Industrial Company Ltd. It was further agreed that there is no due from the appellant to M/s Beijia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and appellant's claim of creditor is wrong. 3. CIT Appeal failed to appreciate the appellant's prayer that liability was discharged after tripartite agreement. 4. CIT Appeal erred to examine Hon'ble ITAT finding that credit is carried forward from earlier and is not assessable u/s68. 5. Hon'ble ITAT may kindly allow the appeal for these and such other grounds that may be taken at the time of hearing. 6. Appellant craves to add any fresh ground or delete any ground at the time of hearing. 3.2 All the grounds raised (supra) are basically raised in respect of addition of ₹ 9,17,410/- in respect of sundry creditors of ₹ 7,79,550/- pertaining to Beijia Industrial Co. Ltd., and ₹ 1,37,860/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned AR pointed out that as per details filed, M/s. Associated Safety Glass Pvt. Ltd., had paid M/s. Beijia Industrial Company Ltd., the amount of ₹ 5,25,000/- in the year under consideration as under: 1) On 1.2.2008 vide cheque No. 580837 of Karur Vysya Bank ₹ 2,00,000/- 2) On 19.2.2008 vide cheque No. 879844 of Karur Vysya Bank ₹ 1,00,000/- 3) On 6.3.2008 vide cheque No. 580840 of Karur Vysya Bank ₹ 50,000/- 4) On 13.3.2008 vide cheque No. 580845 of Karur Vysya Bank ₹ 1,00,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
