9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 943 - AT - Income TaxTrading liability - genuineness of the entities against whom trading liabilities have been shown - assessee contended that if wants to make the addition on account of bogus credit u/s 68. Then, it has to be made in the year in which the credits were recorded first time. It is a carry forward from the earlier year, the AO has not disputed this aspect. If AO wants to make addition on account of cessation of liability u/s 41(1) of the IT Act then, the liability has not ceased, assessee has partly made the payment during this year and remaining in the next year. - Held that - The reasoning of the ld. CIT (A) is that assessee failed to produce bank details of Raj Industrial Corporation indicating the credits of the amounts debited from its account. To our mind, it is a little too higher technical approach the assessee can produce its accounts, a certificate from its banker. It is to be seen that, why it will pay an amount to some unknown entity. - Decided in favour of assessee. Demand of CENVAT - Held that - It is an additional liability of the taxes. It is not related to any penalty - The AO has observed that it is panel in nature but how it is penal in nature AO has not observed this fact - Decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of trading liabilities as bogus. 2. Justification for deletion of differential amount by CIT (A). 3. Deletion of trading liability related to Monica Enterprises. 4. Confirmation of trading liability related to Raj Industrial Corporation. 5. Deduction of additional demand of CENVAT. Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of Trading Liabilities as Bogus: The assessee, engaged in the manufacturing of auto parts, filed its return for AY 2007-08 declaring an income of Rs.1,26,76,220/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the AO scrutinized the accounts, revealing trading liabilities against three entities: Durga Enterprises, Monica Enterprises, and Raj Industrial Corporation. The AO deemed these liabilities as bogus and added them to the taxable income, determining a total taxable income of Rs.3,57,14,214/-. 2. Justification for Deletion of Differential Amount by CIT (A): The CIT (A) found that the trading liability of Rs.1,61,25,279/- shown against Durga Enterprises was written back by the assessee before the AO's investigation and offered for taxation in AY 2008-09. The CIT (A) ruled that this amount could not be taxed twice. However, the revenue contested the deletion of Rs.2,05,980/- (the difference between Rs.1,61,25,279/- and Rs.1,59,19,299/-). The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, noting that the AO did not properly visualize the complete facts and failed to account for the payment of Rs.7,52,350/- made during the year. 3. Deletion of Trading Liability Related to Monica Enterprises: The CIT (A) observed that the assessee made payments to Monica Enterprises through account payee cheques and online bank transfers, with all transactions duly documented and registered with the sales tax authorities. The AO did not find any defects in these details during remand proceedings. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT (A) that the payment through banking channels and the documentation provided were sufficient to validate the trading liability, thus rejecting the revenue's challenge to the deletion of Rs.38,05,500/-. 4. Confirmation of Trading Liability Related to Raj Industrial Corporation: The CIT (A) confirmed the addition of Rs.30,49,488/- against Raj Industrial Corporation, citing the assessee's failure to produce bank details of the recipient. The Tribunal, however, found that the AO sought to tax the outstanding liability as bogus, which was an opening balance from an earlier year. The Tribunal ruled that such addition should be examined in the year the liability first appeared, not in the current assessment year. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the liability had not ceased, as payments were made during and after the assessment year. Thus, the addition was deleted. 5. Deduction of Additional Demand of CENVAT: The AO disallowed the deduction of Rs.57,727/- claimed by the assessee on account of additional demand of CENVAT, alleging it was penal in nature. The CIT (A) found that the additional levy was due to disallowed input tax credit and was an additional tax liability, not a penalty. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s findings, noting the AO failed to explain how the expenses were penal in nature. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's appeal, pronouncing the order in open court on 23/08/2013.
|
