9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 1305 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 41 - remission or cessation of liability - explanation offered by the assessee was not satisfactory - Held that - In the present case once the credit entry qua Sh. Anup Kumar is continuing in the assessee s books over several years and it has been accepted as such the ld. CIT(A) has clearly erred while accepting Sh. Anup Kumar s version that he did not owe anything to the assessee and rejecting the assessee s entry of credit outstanding. Thereby the Authorities below have raised the issue of genuineness of the credit entry during the year under consideration which action is not sustainable in view of the Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2013 (5) TMI 690 - DELHI HIGH COURT ). Therefore the addition is deleted. Apropos party no.2 the entry has been standing in the assessee s books over the years and it has not been challenged in the initial year of such entry. no conclusion of cessation of liability can be arrived at. As such this addition is deleted. So far as regards party no. 3 i.e. Civil Surgeon Hoshiarpur the fact that the entry was statedly a wrong entry does not stand disputed by the Taxing Authorities since they had not disputed the fact that this entry was rectified in the next year. As such existing over the years this entry has not been earlier decided against the assessee. Accordingly this addition is also deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. Trading addition - unaccounted sales - Held that - It is trite that no addition can be made in the trading results without any material on record and without pointing out any defect either in the method of accounting of the assessee or in the books of account maintained by the assessee. See J.A. Trivedi Brothers vs. CIT (1984 (11) TMI 39 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court) - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of addition made to the Trading Account without invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Legality of addition of Rs. 2,52,300/- based on unrecorded sales of Rs. 15,00,000/-. 3. Legality of addition of Rs. 93,327/- under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act by treating sundry creditors as bogus, non-existent, and unverifiable. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Addition to Trading Account Without Invoking Section 145(3): The assessee contended that the addition made to the Trading Account without rejecting the books of account was illegal. The CIT(A) held that such an addition could be made without rejecting the books. The Tribunal observed that no addition could be made in the trading results without any material on record and without pointing out any defect in the method of accounting or in the books of account maintained by the assessee. The Tribunal cited several cases, including 'J.A. Trivedi Brothers vs. CIT' and 'CIT vs. Modi Enterprises', to support this view. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's grievance and deleted the addition. 2. Legality of Addition of Rs. 2,52,300/- Based on Unrecorded Sales: The AO observed that the assessee had not included unrecorded sales of Rs. 15,00,000/- in the total sales while calculating the Gross Profit (G.P) ratio, which was shown as 16.82%. The AO added Rs. 2,52,300/- to the returned income, representing 16.82% of the unrecorded sales. The assessee argued that the unrecorded sales were included in the trading account, and the correct G.P ratio was 12.50%. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition, stating that the auditors could not ignore the figure of unrecorded sales while making the audit. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's stand regarding the entry of unrecorded sales in the trading account was not disputed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal held that no addition could be made without any material on record and without pointing out any defect in the books of account. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 2,52,300/-. 3. Legality of Addition of Rs. 93,327/- Under Section 41(1): The AO added Rs. 93,327/- to the returned income by invoking section 41(1), treating sundry creditors as bogus, non-existent, and unverifiable. The creditors in question were Anup Kumar (Rs. 37,440/-), Ganesh Pharmaceutical & Surgical (Rs. 10,000/-), and Civil Surgeon, Hoshiarpur (Rs. 45,887/-). The AO observed that Anup Kumar had stated he had nothing to receive from the assessee, and the other two creditors did not respond to the enquiry. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition, stating that the liability shown in the books did not exist or had ceased to exist. The Tribunal analyzed each creditor's case: - Anup Kumar: The Tribunal referred to 'CIT vs. Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd.', which held that the issue of the genuineness of a credit entry could only be examined in the year in which the liability was recorded. Since the credit entry was continuing over several years, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 37,440/-. - Ganesh Pharmaceutical & Surgical: The Tribunal noted that the entry had been standing in the assessee's books over the years and had not been challenged in the initial year. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 10,000/- was deleted. - Civil Surgeon, Hoshiarpur: The Tribunal observed that the entry was stated to be a wrong entry and was rectified in the next year. Since this fact was not disputed by the Taxing Authorities, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 45,887/-. Therefore, the Tribunal accepted Ground no. 3 and deleted the total addition of Rs. 93,327/-. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, deleting the additions made to the Trading Account and under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of material evidence and pointed out defects in the books of account before making any additions. The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 12/04/2016.
|
