2017 (12) TMI 1346 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of advances from the customers - CIT-A allowed claim - Held that - In case of three credits, the Assessing Officer himself has recorded that advances are fully verified. We do not find any justified reasons for agitating the additions, where the Assessing Officer himself has accepted as no addition is warranted. Further, in case of few credits, the assessee has already furnished affidavits from the customers and in the statement recorded by the Inspector, the relevant customers have already shown the registered sale deed and owned the fact of payment made, no addition is called for in the case of the assessee against such advances appearing in the balance sheet for relevant year ending. In few cases, the advances have been received in earlier years and thus, no addition could have been made in the year under consideration. Wherever, the credits have not been explained, the Ld. CIT-(A) has already sustained the addition. In our view, order of the Ld. CIT-(A) on the issue in dispute is well reasoned and we do not find any infirmity - Decided against revenue.

Issues involved:
Additions on account of unverified and unconfirmed advances from customers for assessment year 2005-06.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-appearance of the assessee:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad. Despite multiple opportunities given to the assessee, neither the assessee nor its Authorized Representative appeared before the Tribunal. The Tribunal deemed the notice to be served and proceeded with the hearing based on the record and the appearance of the Ld. DR representing the Revenue.

2. Background and Assessment:
The assessee, engaged in construction and development of a commercial property, filed its income tax return declaring income. However, non-compliance with notices led to best judgment assessment by the Assessing Officer, assessing the total income. The assessee appealed to the CIT-(A), who allowed partial relief. Aggrieved by this, the Revenue appealed to the Tribunal.

3. Issue of Unverified Advances:
The main issue revolved around the addition on account of advances from customers. The Revenue contended that the assessee failed to produce books of accounts, establish creditworthiness, and prove the genuineness of the transactions related to unverified advances. The Ld. Sr. DR argued that the CIT-(A) relied on creditors' affidavits without proper verification.

4. Assessee's Explanation:
The assessee explained that the advances were from customers who purchased space in a building under a self-financing scheme. The advance amounts were shown in the balance sheet until registration documents were prepared. The list of customers and their advances was provided to the authorities.

5. Remand Proceedings and Verification:
During the remand proceedings, documents and affidavits from customers were produced. The Assessing Officer's remand report detailed verification of advances from various customers. Some advances were confirmed, while doubts were raised on others concerning cash and cheque payments.

6. Decision and Conclusion:
The CIT-(A) upheld certain additions as unexplained, but for the remaining advances, the Tribunal found no justification for further additions. The Tribunal noted that where the Assessing Officer verified advances and where customers confirmed payments, no additional additions were warranted. The Tribunal upheld the CIT-(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and sustaining the order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT-(A)'s decision regarding the unverified advances from customers for the assessment year 2005-06.

← Previous Next →