9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 499 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - correlation between the amount surrendered in A.Y. 2007-08 and bogus credits/deposits shown in A.Y. 2009-10 - Held that - The amount surrendered by the assessee is represented in the form of cash deposits in the books of accounts and not any other tangible assets. So, it is the cash pool which is available with the assessee and what is required to be investigated by the Revenue in order to hold its ground is that the assessee has exhausted the cash pool and was not in possession thereof at the beginning of the financial year under consideration. However, we donot see any findings given by the ld CIT(A) and the contention of the assessee that it was in possession of sufficient cash balance out of income offered in AY 2007-08 and which was circulated in AY 2009-10 remain uncontroverted. In light of above discussions we hold that the assessee shall be eligible to claim benefit of amount surrendered in AY 2007-08 amounting to ₹ 47,10,000 and to this extent, the addition stand deleted. The remaining addition of ₹ 18,36,664 is not disputed and the same is hereby sustained. - Decided partly in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of addition of ?65,46,664 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Non-allowance of benefit of telescoping of ?47,10,000 claimed by the assessee from the amount surrendered in AY 2007-08. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Confirmation of Addition of ?65,46,664 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The assessee, a partnership firm dealing in Eicher Tractors and other vehicles, filed its income return under Section 139(1). The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment under Section 143(3) and added ?65,46,664 as unexplained cash deposits. The assessee contended that this amount should be set off against ?47,10,000 surrendered in AY 2007-08. However, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition, stating there was no correlation between the surrendered amount in AY 2007-08 and the cash deposits in AY 2009-10. The CIT(A) noted that the surrendered amount was represented by various assets in the balance sheet and not shown as liquidated. 2. Non-Allowance of Benefit of Telescoping of ?47,10,000 Claimed by the Assessee: The assessee argued that the surrendered amount of ?47,10,000 from AY 2007-08, which was shown as advances from customers and later refunded, was available in cash and used for deposits in AY 2009-10. The AO and CIT(A) rejected this claim, stating the surrendered amount was already utilized and not available for set-off against the current year's deposits. During the hearing, the assessee's representative reiterated that the cash from the surrendered amount was available and introduced as deposits in AY 2009-10. The representative emphasized the principle of peak credit theory and cited several judicial precedents supporting the telescoping of surrendered income against unexplained deposits. The Revenue's representative supported the lower authorities' orders and referred to several judicial decisions, including those by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Rajasthan High Court, which emphasize the need for a clear link between surrendered income and subsequent cash deposits. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal analyzed the facts and judicial precedents, noting that the surrendered amount in AY 2007-08 was indeed available as cash and could be used for deposits in AY 2009-10. The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) did not adequately address the assessee's contention regarding the availability of cash from the surrendered amount. The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible to claim the benefit of the surrendered amount of ?47,10,000, thus deleting this portion of the addition. The remaining addition of ?18,36,664 was sustained as it was not disputed by the assessee. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal deleting the addition of ?47,10,000 and sustaining the remaining ?18,36,664. The Tribunal emphasized the principles of peak credit theory and the need for a clear link between surrendered income and subsequent cash deposits. Order Pronounced: The order was pronounced in the open court on 08/02/2017.
|
