2010 (9) TMI 154 - HC - Income Tax

Income from unexplained sources Unexplained customer advances On account of cash received - transaction of receipt of money is not made through banking channel - assessee has not produced any evidences as to the identity and existence of the parties - not produced evidences that these parties were carrying on a business at the address as given neither any details as to the premises occupying by them Held that - appellant has not been able to prove either the identity or the existence of the parties who had advanced money - trade credit set up by the appellant is against normal human conduct as no petty supplier/commission agent/ fruit vendor would give money four to nine months in advance for supply of vegetables - appellant is alleged to have received advances had denied the factum of any transaction with the appellant Appeal is dismissed.

Issues:
1. Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment Year 1996-97.
2. Determination of additions in the appellant's income during assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act, 1961.
3. Deletion of additions by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and subsequent appeal by revenue before the Tribunal.
4. Tribunal setting aside the CIT(A)'s order regarding unexplained customer advances and remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer.
5. Reassessment by the Assessing Officer treating the advance as income of unexplained customer advances under Section 68 of the Act, 1961.
6. Arguments presented by the appellant's counsel regarding rejection of explanation for credit entries and failure to distinguish between trade and cash credits.
7. Tribunal's decision based on lack of evidence regarding the identity and existence of parties who advanced money to the appellant.
8. Agreement with the Tribunal's view that the defense of trade credit set up by the appellant is against normal human conduct.
9. Lack of evidence presented by the appellant despite findings in previous litigation and remand order.
10. Dismissal of the present appeal due to lack of merit.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed challenging the Tribunal's order for the Assessment Year 1996-97 under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant's income was determined during assessment proceedings, leading to additions totaling ' 5,56,800. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted these additions, prompting a subsequent appeal by the revenue before the Tribunal.
2. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order regarding unexplained customer advances and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO, following the Tribunal's direction, treated the advance as income under Section 68 of the Act, 1961, leading to the dismissal of appeals filed by the appellant before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal.
3. The appellant's counsel argued that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the explanation for credit entries and failed to distinguish between trade and cash credits. However, the Tribunal found the appellant unable to prove the identity or existence of the parties who advanced money, supporting its decision with detailed reasoning.
4. The Tribunal highlighted discrepancies in the appellant's claims, such as the lack of evidence regarding business dealings with the parties who allegedly provided advances. Despite previous findings and a remand order, the appellant failed to provide substantial evidence or confront third parties, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal for lack of merit.

← Previous Next →