9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 174 - AT - Income TaxDeletion of additions of creditors Onus discharged by assessee regarding genuineness of transactions - Held that - The assessee has declared a better G.P. rate at 6.07% as compared to 3.24% in the preceding year and 3.07% in the year before preceding year - the AO issued letters u/s 133(6) of the Act, out of which 14 letters returned back unserved - he requested the AO to serve the notices through notice server but instead the AO confronted the assessee vide order-sheet dated 24.08.2009, that the onus lies on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the creditors and accordingly the assessee was asked to furnish name, address, and PAN on the copy of account - The assessee submitted the confirmation along with copies of account in the case of 12 creditors and confirmation with regard to the two creditors - none of the parties is having PAN - the arguments of revenue that it is necessary that each parties should have the PAN cannot be held correct, since as per Income-tax Act, it is only, when the income of a person exceeds the limit as prescribed the person is required to file Income Tax Return u/s 139(1) of the Act - the AO has not brought on record that any receipt of cash has been there in lieu of cheque payment made to the creditors - the assessee have discharged his onus, there is no infirmity in the order of CIT(A), who has rightly deleted the addition Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 1,02,82,924/- made by the A.O. on account of creditors. 2. Verification of creditors and their creditworthiness. 3. Genuineness of creditors without PAN or IT details. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 1,02,82,924/-: The Revenue challenged the deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,02,82,924/- by the learned CIT(A). The A.O. had added this amount as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, due to doubts about the genuineness of sundry creditors. The learned CIT(A) deleted this addition after considering the submissions and explanations provided by the assessee. The assessee had declared a gross profit rate of 6.07% for the year, which was higher than the previous year's 3.24%. The A.O. had issued letters to 23 creditors for verification, out of which 14 were returned unserved. The assessee provided confirmations and copies of accounts for these creditors, but the A.O. found inconsistencies and declared one creditor, Sh. Shafat A. Wani, as bogus based on his statement. The learned CIT(A) found the assessee's explanations satisfactory and deleted the addition. 2. Verification of Creditors and Their Creditworthiness: The A.O. questioned the creditworthiness of the creditors, as many letters sent for verification were returned unserved, and some creditors did not have PAN or maintain books of accounts. The A.O. recorded the statement of one creditor, Sh. Shafat A. Wani, who confirmed transactions with the assessee but lacked proper documentation and PAN. The A.O. extrapolated this finding to all 14 creditors whose letters were returned unserved. The learned CIT(A) noted that the assessee had provided confirmations and copies of accounts for these creditors and that payments were made through account payee cheques. The learned CIT(A) found that the A.O. did not make further inquiries or provide the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the creditors, and thus, the addition was not justified. 3. Genuineness of Creditors Without PAN or IT Details: The A.O. argued that the absence of PAN and IT details for the creditors indicated a lack of genuineness. However, the learned CIT(A) and the assessee's counsel argued that not all individuals are required to have PAN or file IT returns if their income does not exceed the prescribed limit. The learned CIT(A) found that the assessee had regular business transactions with most of these creditors in the preceding and following years, and payments were made through account payee cheques. The learned CIT(A) concluded that the A.O. did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the creditors were bogus or that any cash was received back after making cheque payments. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the learned CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 1,02,82,924/-, finding no infirmity in the order. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, noting that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of the creditors and that the A.O. had not conducted sufficient inquiries. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objection, as it did not raise any substantive grievance against the learned CIT(A)'s order. Final Order: The appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross-objection filed by the assessee were both dismissed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 24th November 2014.
|
