2013 (6) TMI 660 - AT - Income Tax

Non existent/bogus liability - CIT(A) confirmed additions - Held that - As appellant had not proved this liability with any evidence for genuineness the order of the CIT(A) confirmed - against assessee. Non existent/bogus liability - CIT(A) confirmed additions - notice on the party was returned unserved by the postal authority with a remark not known - Held that - As assessee has purchased computer cartage for the business purposes vide bill no.20, dated 23.08.2004 and bill no.28, dated 09.10.2004 and payments were made through bank account of the assessee company, therefore, genuineness of the transaction had been proved by the appellant. In favour of assessee. Unexplained difference in accounts - Held that - Considering evidences furnished by the appellant which shows that as per assessee s books account, the liability as on 31.03.2005 has been shown at Rs.6,93,220/- and in the books of M/s. Bhavin Industries at Rs.7,54,800/-. Similarly creditor in the name of M/s. Colourtex P. Ltd. in the assessee s book has been shown at Rs.13,04,340/- whereas in the books of account of in case of M/s. Colourtex P. Ltd. the creditors of the assessee has been shown at Rs.14,23,994/-. The appellant had not filed any re-conciliation before the lower authorities as well as before us. Therefore order of the CIT(A) confirmed - assessee s appeal is dismissed. Disallowance @ 10% by CIT(A) out of 25% on account of telephone, conveyance and miscellaneous expenses - Held that - As CIT(A) restricted this addition @ 10% the decision of CIT(A) is confirmed - assessee s appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of non-existent/bogus liability.
2. Sustaining addition of unexplained difference in accounts.
3. Disallowance of expenses.

Issue 1 - Addition of Non-Existent/Bogus Liability:
The appeal was regarding the addition of non-existent/bogus liabilities by the Assessing Officer (A.O.). The A.O. observed discrepancies in liabilities with parties M/s. CTX Dyestuff Ltd. and M/s. Orbit International. The appellant failed to provide evidence to prove the genuineness of these liabilities, resulting in additions of Rs. 1,10,935/- and Rs. 7,560/-. The CIT(A) upheld these additions, emphasizing the lack of evidence. The appellant contended that the liabilities were not written off in the books and cited Section 41(1) of the IT Act. Despite presenting account copies, the genuineness remained unproven. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the appeal on this ground.

Issue 2 - Sustaining Addition of Unexplained Difference in Accounts:
The A.O. issued notices under section 133(6) to verify liabilities with M/s. Bhavin Industries and M/s. Colourtex P. Ltd., noting discrepancies of Rs. 61,580/- and Rs. 1,18,955/-, respectively. The appellant failed to explain these differences adequately, leading to additions. The CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal, considering discrepancies in income declaration and purchase debits. However, the remaining unexplained amounts were upheld. The appellant provided account copies but failed to reconcile the differences. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision due to the lack of reconciliation, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal on these grounds.

Issue 3 - Disallowance of Expenses:
The A.O. disallowed a portion of telephone, conveyance, and miscellaneous expenses for non-business purposes. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance from 25% to 10%. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, considering it a reasonable disallowance. Consequently, this ground of appeal was dismissed, and the overall appeal was partly allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decisions of the lower authorities regarding the addition of non-existent liabilities and unexplained differences in accounts, while confirming the reasonable disallowance of certain expenses. The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal pronouncing the order on 14.06.2013.