9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 955 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - addition being the amount outstanding in the name of the three sundry creditors - HELD THAT - Since the assessee in the instant case, has filed the various details giving the statement of account, confirmation, etc., and has substantiated that the said sundry creditors were paid in the subsequent year through banking channels and that the assessee has had regular transactions with the same parties in the subsequent years which were not doubted by the Revenue and considering the fact that the trading results shown by the assessee for the impugned year have not been disturbed by the AO, therefore, in the light of the above discussion and relying on the decisions cited (supra), we hold that the addition made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act in respect of the three sundry creditors which has been sustained by the CIT(A) is not justified. We accordingly set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Genuineness of sundry creditors. 3. Applicability of Section 68 to outstanding sundry creditors. 4. Acceptance of trading results and purchases by the Assessing Officer. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Confirmation of Addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act: The primary issue in this case is the confirmation of the addition of ?48,17,761/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which pertains to the amount outstanding in the name of three sundry creditors. The AO noted a fall in the Gross Profit (GP) rate and sought details of purchases and job work along with confirmations from the sundry creditors. The assessee failed to furnish bills, confirmations, or subsequent bank statements reflecting the payments. Consequently, the AO invoked Section 68 to make the addition. 2. Genuineness of Sundry Creditors: The AO and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] questioned the genuineness of the transactions with the three sundry creditors, namely M/s Say My Choice, M/s Inder Chand Shashi Kant, and M/s Ganapati Impex. The CIT(A) upheld the addition after considering the remand report, which indicated that the parties were not conducting regular business or were not located at the given addresses. The assessee's inability to substantiate the transactions with supporting evidence such as gate passes, delivery challans, and transporters’ bills further led to the confirmation of the addition. 3. Applicability of Section 68 to Outstanding Sundry Creditors: The assessee's counsel argued that the provisions of Section 68 cannot be applied to outstanding sundry creditors, especially when the purchases and trading results have been accepted by the AO. The counsel cited several judicial precedents, including decisions from the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Pancham Dass Jain, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Aggarwal, and Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in PCIT vs. Kulwinder Singh, which supported the view that Section 68 is not applicable to amounts representing purchases made on credit. 4. Acceptance of Trading Results and Purchases by the Assessing Officer: The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the AO accepted the purchases, sales, and trading results without rejecting the books of account. The Tribunal noted that the payments to the sundry creditors were made in subsequent years through banking channels and that the assessee had regular transactions with the same parties in subsequent years. The Tribunal referred to various judicial decisions, including those from the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, which held that when trading results are accepted and purchases are not disallowed, Section 68 cannot be invoked for sundry creditors. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the addition made by the AO under Section 68 in respect of the three sundry creditors was not justified. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, emphasizing that the trading results were not disturbed, and the payments to the creditors were substantiated in subsequent years. Order Pronounced: The order was pronounced in the open court on 21.01.2020, allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
|
