9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 1343 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained expenditure u/s. 69C - hawala purchases - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT - AO not discussed in its order the contention of the assessee, the evidence of purchases, delivery of goods and the payment made through Banking transaction as well as the stock register. Before the CIT(A), the similar contention was raised by the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) reproduced the submission of assessee in its order. As relying on SHRI HIRALAL CHUNILAL JAIN VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14 (1) (4) , MUMBAI. AND VICA-VERSA 2016 (1) TMI 1089 - ITAT MUMBAI where the AO has not disputed the use of material nor disputed the stock of the assessee, hence we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of Ld CIT(A) - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Addition of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Income-tax Act. 2. Genuineness of purchases made from parties identified as Hawala Traders. 3. Discrepancy in assessing the purchases and expenses incurred by the assessee. 4. Validity of the order passed by the CIT(A). 5. Application of legal precedents in similar cases. Issue 1: Addition of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Income-tax Act: The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition of &8377; 72,60,177 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure. The AO observed that the assessee had purchased goods from parties identified as Hawala Traders, leading to the addition. The Revenue argued that the genuineness of the parties was not proved, while the assessee contended that full details of purchases were submitted, payments were made through banking transactions, and documentary evidence was provided. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee provided valid explanations with evidence, including bank statements and invoices, and deleted the addition. Issue 2: Genuineness of purchases made from parties identified as Hawala Traders: The AO identified six parties from whom the assessee made purchases, as highlighted by the Sales Tax Department. Notices were issued to these parties, but responses were lacking. The AO treated the entire expenditure as unexplained due to the failure to verify the genuineness of the expenses. However, the assessee provided evidence of purchases, delivery of goods, and payment through banking transactions. The CIT(A) considered the submissions and concluded that the assessee had substantiated the costs incurred towards purchases during the business. Issue 3: Discrepancy in assessing the purchases and expenses incurred by the assessee: The AO's assessment focused on purchases made from specific parties flagged by the Sales Tax Department. Despite the assessee providing detailed evidence, the AO added the entire purchase amount as unexplained. The CIT(A) reviewed the evidence presented by the assessee, including bank statements, invoices, and stock registers, and found the explanations valid, leading to the deletion of the addition. Issue 4: Validity of the order passed by the CIT(A): The CIT(A) thoroughly considered the contentions of both parties, analyzed the evidence provided by the assessee, and concluded that the explanations given were valid and supported by substantiating evidence. The CIT(A) deleted the entire addition made by the AO, emphasizing the importance of documentary proof and stock reconciliation statements in such cases. Issue 5: Application of legal precedents in similar cases: The Tribunal referred to previous decisions where additions based on similar grounds were deleted due to insufficient evidence and lack of dispute regarding the use of materials or stock by the assessee. Relying on these precedents, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition made by the AO, as the genuineness of purchases was adequately substantiated by the assessee. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s order in favor of the assessee, highlighting the importance of providing valid explanations supported by documentary evidence in such tax assessment cases.
|
