9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 866 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s. 68 of customer s Advances received against booking of motor cycles - Held that - At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the books of account duly audited by assessee has not been rejected by the AO and the AO has made the ad hoc disallowance u/s. 68 of the Act, which is arbitrary exercise of power and has to be deleted. Moreover, it has been brought to our notice that in assessee s own case the Tribunal s order for AY 2010-11 2015 (10) TMI 2181 - ITAT KOLKATA wherein the AO made similar addition u/s. 68 of the Act and the said addition was deleted by the Tribunal. This action of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court 2016 (6) TMI 115 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT . The action of the Ld. CIT(A) cannot be sustained. We also note that in this case, the claim of the assessee is ₹ 3,69,74,806/- whereas the AO has disbelieved ₹ 60,00,000/- which is an ad hoc disallowance without rejecting the audited books of account which is an arbitrary exercise of power which action of the AO/Ld. CIT(A) cannot be countenanced. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Confirmation of ad hoc addition under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 based on advances from customers against booking of motor cycles. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Ad hoc addition under section 68 of the Income-tax Act - The appeal was against the Ld. CIT(A)'s order confirming an ad hoc addition of ?60,00,000 under section 68 of the Act based on advances from customers for motor cycles. - The AO disallowed the amount out of the total claimed liability of ?3,69,74,806 as 'advance from customers'. - The AO requested details of customers from whom advances were received, which were provided by the assessee, including adjustment of advances with subsequent sales. - Verification notices were sent to parties, some of which were returned unserved, leading the AO to disbelieve the genuineness of the advances. - The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's addition, leading to the appeal. - The Tribunal noted that the assessee followed a consistent accounting system of adjusting advances against sales, as accepted by the department in previous years. - The Tribunal highlighted that PAN/Voter Identity Card details were not legally required for sale transactions. - The Tribunal, in a previous order for AY 2010-11, had deleted a similar addition under section 68 of the Act for the assessee. - The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the assessee had produced sufficient evidence of receiving advances and adjusting them against sales. - The Tribunal found the AO's ad hoc disallowance without rejecting audited books as arbitrary and directed deletion of the addition. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower authorities' orders and directing the deletion of the ad hoc addition under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The decision was based on the consistent accounting system followed by the assessee and the sufficiency of evidence provided to establish the genuineness of the advances received from customers.
|
