TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- is concerned, the presumption is not rebutted that the said document was found from the residential premises of Shri S.K Singhal and therefore, any action where so required as per law is to be taken in his individual hands and not in the hands of the assessee firm. Further, we find that there is no mention of the assessee firm s name on the said bill and thus, there is no basis to hold that the said document belongs to the assessee firm. The addition of ₹ 175,000 is thus deleted - ITA. Nos. 858/JP/2013 And 637/JP/2016 - - - Dated:- 9-12-2020 - Shri Sandeep Gosain, JM And Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, AM For the Assessee : Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) For the Revenue : Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT) ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), Alwar dated 23.09.2013 pertaining to assessment year 2004-05 wherein the assessee has taken the following sole ground of appeal:- 1. In the facts circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO in making addition of ₹ 2,20,000/- on account of alleged unexplained investment. The actio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laimed that the bill has inadvertently been annexed with the bill of ₹ 45,000/- i.e. bill no.1198. And the bill no.1199 does not pertain to the assessee firm. On examining the bill it is found that at the top of the bill following remark is mentioned (SUBSEQUENT TO BILL NO.1198). Here it is necessary to mention that the bill under consideration is bill no.1199 and the bill no.1198 pertains to purchase of another projection T. V. for ₹ 45,000/- which has been discussed in above 3 paras. Therefore, it is very clear that the bill no.1199 for ₹ 1,75,000/- has been issued subsequent to bill no.1198 and claim of the assessee that it is annexed with 1198 is true to the extent that it has not been annexed inadvertently but deliberately because the bill pertains to the assessee firm and has been issued subsequent to bill no.1198 for purchase of another Projection T.V. The bill amount of ₹ 1,75,000 has been paid in cash. The assessee has disowned the bill therefore there was no question of verifying its payment from books of account. However, the circumstantial evidence as discussed above very much indicates that the bill pertains to the assessee firm for which paym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urchases made in cash are a clear reflection of the unaccounted expenditure / investment. A seller would normally issue a bill / invoice to the buyer against the goods sold on cash basis by writing cash on the invoice, rather than the name of the person who is buying the goods. This is a normal business practice, which is being followed by everyone in day to day life. Thus, there is no logic in the argument that there is no name of the appellant written on the invoice number 1199 and only cash has been written on the bill and hence there is no purchase made by the appellant. 4.5 The appellant has also failed to furnish any documentary evidence in the appellate proceedings in support of the claim that the said purchase against Invoice No.1198 was made by Sh. Kunal Singhal. I have also gone through the case laws cited by the appellant and find that they are not applicable to the facts of this case. These documents were found and seized during the course of search and seizure operation at the premises of the appellant and therefore it is the primary duty of the appellant to substantiate its claim with the best possible evidence. According to section 132(4A) of the IT Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f search these were found installed at the office premises. 4.3 It was submitted before the ld. AO as well as before the ld. CIT (A) that the Bill No.1198 for ₹ 45,000/- pertained to the purchaser by Shri W. R. Singhal father of Shri S. K. Singhal under exchange offer. In respect of Bill No.1199 for ₹ 1,75,000/-, it was submitted that it did not contain the name of the appellant firm and it in no way related to the firm. 4.4 A specific request was made during the course of assessment proceedings (AO Page 2) to verify the above fact from M/s. Ganpati Electronics who had issued the bills. 4.5 The lower authorities, for the reasons best known to them, have not acted upon the assessee s request. Electronic items do carry with them the warranty and therefore complete details of buyer are available with the vendors. 4.6 Bill No.1199 was erroneously attached with Bill No.1198. The vendor is located at S-11, Sahara Mall, M. G. Road, Gurgaon whereas the assessee firm is located at E-127, Industrial Area, Bhiwandi, Alwar. Bill No.1198 is dated 10/11/2003 where Bill No.1199 is 11/11/2003. Slight application of common sense will reveal that if a person of Bhiwan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demonstrate through verifiable evidence that such purchases have been done from its disclosed sources of income. Therefore, in absence of any evidence on record that such purchases were made by the assessee firm from its own disclosed sources, the unexplained investment towards such purchase of ₹ 45,000 is hereby upheld. 8. As far as the other bill no. 1199 of ₹ 175,000/- is concerned, the presumption is not rebutted that the said document was found from the residential premises of Shri S.K Singhal and therefore, any action where so required as per law is to be taken in his individual hands and not in the hands of the assessee firm. Further, we find that there is no mention of the assessee firm s name on the said bill and thus, there is no basis to hold that the said document belongs to the assessee firm. The addition of ₹ 175,000 is thus deleted. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No. 637/JP/16 10. In this appeal, the assessee has challenged the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for A.Y. 2004-05. In this regard, no specific arguments have been taken by the ld AR. Considering the order passed by the AO, the levy of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
