TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 982X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03.2016 had furnished all the evidences including approval from RBI to demonstrate that the liability has not ceased to exist. It appears that the AO has completely ignored the submissions of the assessee and the materials brought on record, whereas, Commission (Appeals) after appropriately appreciating the relevant facts and material on record as well as the submissions of the assessee had taken a correct view by deleting the addition under Section 41(1), since, factually there was neither remission or cessation of liability under Section 41(1). In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of learned Commission (Appeals) on the issue. The grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. - ITA NO. 885/MUM/2018 (A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mining the details of trade payables, noticed the following amounts which remained outstanding for more than 3 years. Sr. No. Name of the Party Amount in Rs. 1 Barry Callebaut Singapore 1,35,31,066 2 Barry Callebaut Asia Pacific (S) Pte. Ltd. 3,18,54,730 Total 4,53,85,796 Noticing the above, he called upon the assessee to explain why the said amount should not be considered as cessation of liability under Section 41(1) of the Act and added to the income of the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n certain judicial precedents, learned Commission (Appeals) deleted the addition made under Section 41(1) of the Act. 4. The learned Departmental representative submitted, the liability remained outstanding in the books of the assessee for more than 3 years. Therefore, the Assessing Officer treated it as cessation of liability under Section 41(1) of the Act. He submitted, no details or explanation was furnished by the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings which compelled the Assessing Officer to make the addition under Section 41(1) of the Act. He submitted, in the course of appellate proceedings before learned Commission (Appeals), the assessee had furnished fresh evidences which were never furnished before the Assessing Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules as learned Commission (Appeals), in exercise of powers conferred on him under Section 251 of the Act, had made inquiry to find out the correct facts. He submitted, even in course of assessment proceedings also the assessee had furnished its explanation before the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 15.03.2016 bringing all relevant facts on record. However, the submissions of the assessee were totally ignored by the Assessing Officer. Thus, he submitted, there is no need to interfere with the decision of learned Commission (Appeals). 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon by the parties at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its books. The onus is entirely on the Assessing Officer to demonstrate that the liability has ceased to exist during the year under consideration. In our view, the Assessing Officer has failed to prove that the outstanding liability has ceased to exist in the impugned assessment year so as to invoke the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act. On the contrary, it is seen from the evidences filed by the assessee in the paper book that not only the recipients were pressing hard for recovery of the outstanding liability, but the assessee has also written to the RBI through its banker seeking approval for remittance to be made to the oversees recipients. It is also evident, after obtaining the necessary approval from the RBI, the amount in dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
