2012 (12) TMI 1115 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Addition u/s 68 of the Act in respect of Deposits and Share application money/capital.
2. Disallowance of insurance expense.

Summary:

1. Addition u/s 68 of the Act in respect of Deposits and Share application money/capital:

The assessee, engaged in Cotton ginning activity, increased share capital and accepted new loans during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) added Rs. 3.2 lakhs as loan creditor and Rs. 12.5 lakhs as share capital u/s 68 of the I.T. Act due to various defects in the confirmations provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition, noting that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of transactions, creditworthiness, and identity of the cash creditors. The CIT(A) emphasized that the appellant could not substantiate its claim with positive evidence, referencing case laws such as M/s. Precision Finance (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 208 ITR 265 (Cal.), Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC), and Oceanic Products Exporting Co. vs. CIT 241 ITR 497(Ker.).

Upon appeal, the Tribunal examined the evidences but found that the share holders/depositors had not proved the creditworthiness and genuineness in all cases. It was noted that the assessee did not furnish confirmations in a timely manner, leaving no time for the A.O. to issue summons. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order for the limited purpose of verifying the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions, directing the appellant to cooperate with the A.O. and produce the share holders/cash creditors for examination.

2. Disallowance of insurance expense:

The A.O. observed that the assessee claimed insurance expenses on a payment basis at Rs. 76,530/- and also debited Rs. 62,130/- related to F.Y. 05-06 in the P&L account, despite following the mercantile system of accounting. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition as the assessee could not counter the A.O.'s findings. The Tribunal noted that the case law cited by the assessee pertained to Keyman's Insurance policy, which did not apply to the current case. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order but directed the A.O. to verify the expenses and allow the claim in A.Y. 06-07.

Conclusion:

The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with directions for further verification of the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions and the insurance expenses.