9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as many Din and Order Nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057640303(1) and 1058226174(1), dated 02.11.2023 and 24.11.2023; involving proceedings u/s. 147 r.w.s.144 and 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"); respectively. They have also filed their stay applications S.A.No.1 & 3/PAN./2024 seeking to restrain the department from recovering the consequential outstanding demand(s) of Rs. 30,13,680/- and Rs. 13,10,588/-; respectively. Heard the assessees as well as the department at length. Case files perused. 2. It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the sides that these twin assessee's have raised a common/identical substantive ground challenging learned lower authorities action making sec.69C additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer observed that there was imported goods from China to the extent of Rs. 89,79,665 and the said amount was not included in the purchases and the corresponding custom duty was also not included in the purchases amounting to Rs. 28,02,495. The turnover is not exceeding the threshold limit of 44AD and the income does not undergo any change as the said income was considered by the Assessing for computing the total income. Hence, even though the assessee claimed that the payment was not made towards purchases as the goods were found to be defective and the said goods were to be returned to the supplier and hence it was not included in purchases, the fact remains that there is a transaction in relation to that business which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r has rightly treated this transaction to the extent of the value of the goods as unexplained expenditure and the addition made towards purchase of Rs. 89,79,665 as unexplained expenditure is upheld. This ground is "Dismissed". 4. Learned counsel vehemently argued during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities herein have erred in law and on facts in making the impugned addition in assessee's hands. He invited our attention to the assessee's detailed paper book running into 69 pages; and more particularly, the corresponding import related documents from pages 38 to 48 that these tax payers had not made any actual payment to the Hong-kong/China based furniture supplier. He referred to the concerned supplier's clarification sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (SC). 7. We thus see no reason to accept the impugned identical sole substantive ground(s) raised in both these appeals. We further wish to make it clear that it was the bounden duty of the assessee only to plead and prove all the relevant facts including the import agreement conditions so as to buttress the point that in case of any eventuality of quality defect on the furniture items ought to be returned to the China based supplier. No such explanation, much less a satisfactory one, has come from the assessee's side all along. We thus affirm the learned lower authorities action deleting the impugned addition. 8. The assessee's alternative prayer that we ought to grant relief of the foregoing custom duty component against the impugned a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
