9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . That, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in partially deleting addition of Rs. 18,51,846/- made on account of addition of site expenses as the assessee failed to establish the power expenses claimed. 5. That, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 5,17,778/- made on account of disallowance of depreciation as the assessee failed to establish the date on which the fixed asset was put to use. 6. That, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 14,08,797/- out of total addition of Rs. 18,51,846/- made on account of proportionate interest disallowed u/s 36(1)(iii) holding that the loans were taken from bank for working capital and plant and machineries which were put to use on 02.09.2011 as the assessee could not prove the genuineness of his claim. 7. That, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,71,095/- on account of undervaluation of stock, as the assessee failed to produce Books of Accounts during the course of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. The ld. CIT(A) has given a categorical finding which we reproduce as under for ready reference: "6.3 In the ground of appeal No. 1, the appellant has impugned the addition of Rs. 3,05,96,415/- made by the AO. The AO has observed that as per bank statement, assessee had made cash deposits amounting to Rs. 3,61,90,000/- and other payments in cash were made to Jagdamba Milk Dairy amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/-, Yadav Dairy Rs. 4,33,898/-, wages & salary Rs. 12,39,112/- Rs. 18,57,704/. Thus, total cash deposits and expenses comes to salary 19 to Rs. 4,01,20,714/-. He also observed that total cash available to the assessee as per details on file were Rs. 95,24,299/- only on account of cash sales and sale remittances in cash. Thus, as per the AO the balance cash deposits/cash expenses amounting to Rs. 3,05,96,415/- remained unverifiable. He held that as the assessee has failed to discharge its onus, balance cash deposits/expenses amounting to Rs 3,05,96,415/-added to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the 1.T. Act, 1961. The AR of the appellant has contended that the AO has taken wrong figures. In fact total cash deposit i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs the appellant produced all the details but the debtors of the appellant didn't respond to the notice u/s 133(6). The noncompliance of the debtors to the notice could be for many reasons. One of the major factor is the aging. After lapse of so many years sending the notices to the last known addresses of the debtors as provided by the appellant doesn't carry any meaning. There could be many reasons for the no responses from them. These details were provided by the appellant to the AO during assessment proceedings. If he had any doubt then he could have made enquiry from them. Moreover, these debtors were not cash creditors but purchase parties who made purchases from the appellant and paid to it the purchase consideration in cash. The AO has not doubted the sale turnover of the appellant declared in the books then there can be no doubt in the sales made to these parties even if not confirmed through notice u/s 133(6). Sales to these parties have been duly reflected in the books then receipts from them cannot be taxed u/s 68 as held in the case laws relied upon by the AR of the appellant in his submission dated 01/09/2020. These receipts are not cash credits, but the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant. The appellant has provided details of the purchases made from these parties and payments made to them. These details were also provided by him during assessment proceedings as well as remand proceedings. However, in remand report the AO reiterated his stand as he took in the assessment order and no further comments given on the bills as well as ledger accounts of these parties. It is noticed that in the assessment order the assessing officer named three parties Sh. Abdul Majeed, Anmol Dairy and Harry Milk foods Pvt. Ltd, but made addition in respect of purchases made only from the first two parties u/s 68 of the Act. Whereas, no addition on account of the purchases made from third party was made from whom purchases to the extent of Rs. 18.97Cr were made and payment to the extent of Rs. 17.67 Cr were made through bank during the year and outstanding was Rs. 1.62 Cr. This shows arbitrary approach of the AO. As regard the first two parties it has been explained that the purchases were made in the beginning of the financial year and accounts were squared off by paying major amount to them through banks and some amount through cash. As under: Abdul Majeed Account: Date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
