TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tence of the advance providers. So far as creditworthiness is concerned, it cannot be accepted from a seller to examine the creditworthiness of the buyers prior to selling any goods to any persons. AO is equipped with the full powers under his command as per provisions of the Act to call respective persons to examine the source of cash deposit by them to the assessee but in such a situation when the advance providers does not turn up and come forward to appear before the AO, then also the assessee cannot be blamed as the AO possesses all the details of customers, who had advanced the month in the form of identity, PAN and other ID proof. Thus the amount treated by the AO as cash credit is nothing but the advance amount given by the customers for purchase of vehicles from the assessee, which has been finally adjusted at the time of delivery of the vehicles. Therefore, this amount cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee u/s 68 - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.09/Ran/2019 - - - Dated:- 26-7-2019 - Chandra Mohan Garg, JM For the Appellant : Shri Vinay Kumar Jalan, FCA For the Respondent : Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t valid and sustainable. Ld A.R. also pointed out that the reason taken by the AO for making the addition was that from the verification of letter so received, none of the customer had enclosed copy of bill issued by the company at the time of final delivery of the vehicle. Ld A.R. drew our attention to para 5.1 of the first appellate order and submitted that the CIT(A) also confirmed the addition ignoring the contention of the assessee that atleast before making the impugned addition, a show cause notice should have been issued to the assessee allowing it to explain its intention to submit requisite documentary evidence. Ld A.R. lastly submitted that the receipts submitted by the assessee before the authorities below clearly states that the amount received by the assessee for booking the vehicles against which bills were raised and PAN and Adhar numbers were also produced by the buyers. Therefore, the identity, purpose and creditworthiness of the customers who had made advance to the assessee is established. Ld A.R. submitted that it was not a transaction of loan but it was a case of receiving of advance against sale of vehicles and these sales are monitored not only for internal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found credited in the accounts of the assessee relating to any previous year, the same can be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that year where the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and its source is not satisfactory in the opinion of the assessing officer. In such a case, there is a prima facie evidence against the assessee, viz. the receipt of money and, if he fails to rebut the said evidence, it can be used against him by holding that it was the receipt of income nature. 9. In the present case, the assessee has submitted the copies of receipts issued to all advance provider customers enlisted by the AO in para 3.1 of the assessment order (APB page 1 to 6). The assessee has also submitted copies of the invoices, PAN cards and other ID proof regarding most of the advance providers, which is also available at page 7 to 24 of (APB). Ld D.R. has not controverted the copies of receipts, invoice copies, PAN Nos. and other ID proofs of all most all the advancers have been submitted before the authorities below. From the orders of lower authorities, I am unable to see any deliberations regarding verification and examination of these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence before the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, he proceeded to hold that the assessee has not filed any application for admission of new evidence during the appellate proceedings and the assessee has also not made out a case that the case of the appellant is covered under any of the exceptions prescribed under Rule 46A and he dismissed the evidences submitted by the assessee. On this point, it is the contention of the ld A.R. that all documentary evidences were submitted before the AO as well as the CIT(A) but same was not considered in right prospective and reasonable manner. Ld A.R. has also pointed out that when documentary evidence was submitted before the AO and again copies of same were submitted during the first appellate proceedings, there was no requirement in filing any application under Rule 46A of I.T.Rules, 1962. Ld D.R. has opposed to this argument but failed to controvert that the impugned copies of cash receipts, invoices, PAN and other documentary evidences were submitted before the AO as well as the CIT(A). Thus, I safely hold that when the documentary evidences were already filed before the AO, then there was no requirement to file application under rule 46A of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
