9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 915 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - advance received from 469 parties by the assessee - Held that - In the instant case, from the aforesaid findings , it could be safely concluded that the amounts received by the assessee were only trade advances and the same were duly squared up by supply of sand by the assessee to those customers and sales were booked in the Asst Year 2007-08 which was also accepted by the ld AO in the rectification proceedings u/s 154 of the Act while granting credit of TCS u/s 206C(4) of the Act. Thus we hold that the monies received by the assessee are only trade advances and the same has been proved by the assessee as a genuine credit and in any case cannot be the subject matter of addition u/s 68 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the advance received from 469 parties by the assessee in the sum of ? 7,74,85,884/- could be taxed under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Taxability of Advances under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Facts: The assessee, engaged in the trading of iron, scrap, and coal, received work orders from the Bihar Government to lift sand from rivers in three districts. The assessee received advances totaling ? 7,75,34,884/- from 470 customers for future sand supplies. These advances were disclosed in the balance sheet and subsequently adjusted against sales in the following financial year. Assessment Officer's (AO) Findings: The AO treated the advances as bogus and added them under section 68 of the Act, citing several reasons: - Lack of past experience in the sand business. - Non-commencement of sand trading business. - Unusual nature of trade advances. - Discrepancies in customer details and non-service of notices. - Alleged management of local post offices by the assessee. - Inability to prove the source of customer funds. Assessee's Arguments: The assessee contended that: - The advances were genuine trade advances for future sand supplies. - All 470 customers responded to notices under section 133(6) of the Act, confirming the advances and subsequent receipt of sand. - The AO's allegations regarding the management of local post offices and discrepancies in customer details were baseless. - The assessee provided detailed evidence, including customer identity proofs, confirmation letters, and affidavits. - The practice of providing advances for sand supplies was customary in the region. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] Findings: The CIT(A) deleted the addition of ? 7,74,85,884/-, confirming the genuineness of the advances based on: - Detailed examination of the paper book and evidence provided by the assessee. - Confirmation from customers regarding the advances and subsequent supply of sand. - The AO's acceptance of sales in the subsequent year and the granting of credit for Tax Collected at Source (TCS). Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing: - The assessee's compliance with section 133(6) notices and the provision of substantial evidence. - The AO's acceptance of sales in the subsequent year and the granting of TCS credit. - The customary practice of trade advances in the sand business in Bihar. - The AO's baseless allegations regarding the management of local post offices. - The assessee's successful discharge of the initial onus of explaining the nature and source of the credits. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the advances were genuine trade advances, duly adjusted against subsequent sales, and could not be taxed under section 68 of the Act. The appeal of the revenue was dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objection was allowed. Final Order: The Tribunal pronounced the order in the open court on 10.08.2016, dismissing the revenue's appeal and allowing the assessee's cross-objection.
|
