9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (11) TMI 389 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained Cash Credit u/s 68 Held that - When the assessee could not prove the sundry creditors the same was liable to be added. further Purchase has been supported by bill and payments having been made just because the sundry creditors for the supply of goods did not respond to the notices from the Assessing Officer no addition was liable to be made nor accounts of the assessee was liable to be rejected and estimated addition by disallowing of purchase was liable to be made Order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was liable to be reversed. Rejection of books of account u/s 145 Held that - Rejection of Books by CIT(A) is on right footing and does not call for any interference. The revenue has also not been able to dislodge the reasons given by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) for rejection of books of account which has resulted in estimation of addition @ 25% of the total purchases - AO has made the addition of sundry creditors but the sundry creditors are in fact the trade creditors of the assessee on account of purchases made by the assessee which the assessee is unable to substantiate with the proof. In the circumstances the finding of the CIT(A) is liable to be upheld - In the circumstances both the appeals of revenue and assessee stand dismissed.
Issues Involved:
Appeal by revenue against CIT(A)'s order, Appeal by assessee against CIT(A)'s order, Disallowance of sundry creditors/purchase, Addition under section 68 of the IT Act, Failure to prove identity and creditworthiness of creditors, Rejection of books of account under section 145, Estimation of addition @ 25% of total purchases, Treatment of sundry creditors as unexplained cash credit, Dismissal of both revenue's and assessee's appeals. Analysis of Judgment: 1. Disallowance of Sundry Creditors/Purchase: The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order restricting the disallowance of sundry creditors. The revenue contended that the assessee failed to discharge the primary onus regarding the sundry creditors. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance amount, but the revenue argued that the addition under section 68 of the IT Act should not be restricted for trade creditors. The revenue cited legal precedents emphasizing the importance of proving identity and creditworthiness of creditors. The CIT(A)'s decision was challenged based on the lack of supporting documents to prove the genuineness of the credits. 2. Rejection of Books of Account under Section 145: The CIT(A) invoked section 145 of the IT Act and rejected the books of account due to the assessee's failure to substantiate the claims of sundry creditors. The assessee's inability to prove the relationship with M/s. Radhika Exports and produce relevant financial statements led to the rejection of accounts. The revenue argued that the rejection was justified as the assessee did not provide necessary documentation for verification. 3. Estimation of Addition @ 25% of Total Purchases: Despite the Assessing Officer's addition of sundry creditors, the CIT(A) noted that the creditors were trade creditors related to the purchases by the assessee. As the assessee failed to substantiate the purchases, the CIT(A) estimated an addition of 25% of the total purchases. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the importance of proving the genuineness of transactions and maintaining proper documentation. 4. Treatment of Sundry Creditors as Unexplained Cash Credit: The Tribunal dismissed both the revenue's and assessee's appeals for the assessment year 2006-07. The failure to prove the identity and creditworthiness of creditors, along with the rejection of books of account, led to the treatment of sundry creditors as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the IT Act. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, resulting in the dismissal of both appeals. In conclusion, the judgment focused on the importance of substantiating claims, proving genuineness of transactions, and maintaining proper documentation to avoid the treatment of credits as unexplained cash credits. The rejection of books of account under section 145 was deemed necessary due to the lack of evidence provided by the assessee. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the significance of meeting legal requirements and providing verifiable information in tax assessments.
|
