TMI Blog1991 (9) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted on behalf of the assessee that the aforesaid amount was not accounted for in the present assessment year, i.e., 1982-83 as it was settled subsequently and the same was duly accounted for in the year of settlement. The Assessing Officer did not accept the aforesaid explanation on the ground that the debit note was raised by the assessee in this year. By not accounting for the aforesaid amount, it resulted in an under-statement of profit from business. The amount of Rs. 25,000 was accordingly added to the trading account of the assessee. 2. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that although the assessee raised to debit note of Rs. 25,000 on 21-7-1981 against the supplier the dispute was settled in the subsequent assessment year when the supplier accepted the debit note and paid Rs. 25,000 to the assessee. The assessee had duly accounted for the aforesaid amount as its income in the year of receipt. The Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the assessee's contention. He has taken a view that though the assessee sent a debt note to the supplier, the right to receive the amount did not accrue till the latter accepted the debit not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upplied by M/s. Bengal Paper Trading Co., as per letter No. CBA 15073 dated 21-7-1981 which was not originally accepted by the supplier company as per letter No. BPTC/81-82 dated 1-12-1981, a copy of which was placed at page 21 of the paper book. The assessee also had requested the aforesaid company inviting them to have inspection of the damaged goods to ascertain the condition etc., vide letter dated 18-1-1982. As per pages 27 and 28 of the paper book M/s. Bengal Paper Trading Co. was duly debited by the assessee for Rs. 25,000 on 15-11-1982. The aforesaid amount was also duly accounted for by the assessee in its profit and loss account for the period from 16-11-1982 to 4-11-1983 relevant to the assessment year 1984-85. From the above facts it is clear that the claim of the assessee was not accepted by the supplier company within the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1982-83 and it cannot be said that the debit note amount was due and accrued to the assessee during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1982-83. We, therefore, find that the Ld. CIT(A) is perfectly justified in deleting the addition. The appeal by the revenue on this point is without any m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ges and after making the payments and on the basis of accounts submitted by the employees, cash transactions were recorded in the books of account. He, therefore, deleted the addition as he did not find any justification on the part of the Assessing Officer to assess the amount as income from undisclosed sources. 7. Shri S.C. Sen, Ld. departmental representative while objecting to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) has reiterated that facts of the case and the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. He has argued that no evidence whatsoever was produced before the Ld. CIT(A). The arguments and submissions made by the assessee were not verified along with supporting documents, if any. The Ld. CIT(A) has no evidence and basis to justify the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer. On the other hand, Shri S. Bagchi, Ld. counsel of the assessee has argued that the explanation furnished by the assessee before the Assessing Officer and the nature and business practice of the assessee were properly considered by the Ld. CIT(A). He is perfectly justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 8. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be sustained. The Ld. c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come of the assessee. 12. Before the Ld. CIT(A) it was contended that in respect of most of the payments, the provision of section 40A(3) of the Act was not attracted. The Ld. CIT(A) has found that out of the 14 payments mentioned by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order, 13 were paid through S.P. Singh, one of clearing and forwarding agents, as per bills issued by him. The assessee also stated that although the ITO had mentioned consolidated figure of payments showing each payment to be exceeding Rs. 2,500, actually each payment consisted of separate payments made towards the lorry hire, octroi, loading and unloading as well as delivery charges. On an analysis of the details furnished by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) found that the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act are not applicable in respect of the payments mentioned by the ITO at serials 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 in the assessment order. As regards the remaining five payments the Ld. CIT(A) as per details given at page 3 of his appellate order has found that only payments on account of freight charges amounting to Rs. 21,431 exceeding Rs. 2,500 in each case would attract the provisions of section 40A(3) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellate order, the appeal by the assessee is without any merit. The Ld. departmental representative has further submitted that the assessee has produced fresh evidence in the form of an affidavit and the certificate from Shivnath Pd. Singh placed at pages 1 and 2 of the paper book which were not produced before the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A), who had no opportunity to consider the same while passing their orders. The Ld. departmental representative further submitted that the aforesaid two evidences were prepared on 26-7-1991, i.e., long after the orders were passed both by the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A). The aforesaid documents were only an after-thought having no evidentiary value, according to the Ld. departmental representative, and therefore, should not be admitted at this late stage. 14. We have considered the issue after hearing the arguments advanced by both sides. We have also perused the paper book filed by the assessee's counsel. We find that the arguments advanced by the Ld. departmental representative that the assessee's counsel has produced fresh evidence in the form of an affidavit sworn by one of the partners of the assessee-company and in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
