9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 638 - AT - Income TaxAddition of difference in confirmations filed by the sundry creditors or non-satisfactory confirmations - HELD THAT - AO by way of remand report dated 21.08.2014 and rejoinder dated 15.10.2014 has confirmed to have verified accounts of all 7 parties qua transactions with the Assessee by receiving the confirmations from the said creditors and the reconciliation statement given by the Assessee, therefore, considering the confirmations received from the parties, the Ld. Commissioner deleted the addition under challenge. Even otherwise we do not find any reason and/or material to controvert the finding of the ld. Commissioner in deletion of the addition under challenge. Consequently, ground No. 1 is dismissed. Addition u/s.40(A)(2)(b) on account of payment made to the interested parties - addition was made by the AO on account of disallowances u/s. 40(A)(b) of the Act and the Ld. Commissioner observed the said amount has been made in the nature of advance and not made towards expenses, hence, the provision of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act are not applicable - HELD THAT - Commissioner that the Assessee's firm should have deducted the amount to its capital account but the same is not covered u/s. 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Ld. Commissioner accepted the claim of the Assessee to the effect that payment of Rs. 17 lakhs is not u/s. 40A(2)(b) of the Act as the amount of Rs. 9 lakhs is on account of payment made to Shri Virat Bhushan which was not debited to the partners capital account and Rs. 8 lakhs in the name of Ms. Shalini is the old balance as on 01.04.2009. However, the Ld. Commissioner held that the Assessee has not charged interest on the amount of advance to Ms. Shalini on which the interest is calculated @12% i.e. 96,000/- which is being disallowed out of interest paid by the Assessee firm and the same is being added back in the taxable income for the year under consideration. Commissioner and the Central Scrutiny report dated 17.04.2015 which was filed by the Revenue Department, may be inadvertently before the bench wherein with regard to the addition made in hand no appeal is recommended , and are inclined not to interfere with the conclusion drawn by the Ld. Commissioner on the issue in hand. Therefore, ground No. 2 stands dismissed. Addition u/s. 68 of the Act on account of deduction made from the creditors without disclosing in the current asset - amount made as advance for property, was also deducted from the creditors but the same should have been separately disclosed under the current asset - HELD THAT - The owner of the property is Shri Vivek Bhusan in his individual capacity, hence, it cannot be shown as advance in the balance sheet of the firm. Whereas, the Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner reiterated its claim that the AO has accepted that it is a mere mistake on the part of the Assessee therefore he did not debit the amount to the capital account of Shri Vivek Bhushan, partner, who is owner of the property. In view of this fact, the said amount shown as advance against property has been debited to capital account of the partner during the FY 2011-12 relevant to Assessment Year 2012-13. Considering all the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any reason and/or material to controvert the findings of the Ld. Commissioner. Even in the Central Scrutiny report dated 17.04.2015 on the issue under consideration 'no appeal was recommended' therefore, in totality we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner qua issue in hand. Hence, ground No. 3 also stands dismissed.
Issues:
1. Addition of Rs. 1,72,34,476/- on account of difference in confirmation statements from sundry creditors. 2. Disallowance of Rs. 17 lakhs under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. 3. Addition of Rs. 47,29,253/- under section 68 of the Act for deduction from creditors without disclosure in current assets. Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 1,72,34,476/- on account of difference in confirmation statements from sundry creditors: The Revenue challenged the deletion of this addition by the Ld. Commissioner, arguing that the Assessee failed to provide PAN/Bank account details of creditors. The AO made the addition based on discrepancies in confirmations. The Ld. Commissioner obtained a remand report from the AO regarding 7 creditors. The Assessee refuted the claims, providing explanations and confirmations. The AO verified accounts of all parties and confirmed the statements. The Ld. Commissioner, considering the confirmations, deleted the addition. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. Commissioner's decision, finding no reason to overturn it. Ground No. 1 was dismissed. Issue 2: Disallowance of Rs. 17 lakhs under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act: The AO disallowed Rs. 17 lakhs for payments to interested parties without mentioning them in the audit report under section 44AB. The Ld. Commissioner held that the amount was in the nature of an advance, not expenses, thus section 40A(2)(b) did not apply. Regarding specific payments, the Ld. Commissioner accepted some claims but disallowed interest on an advance to Ms. Shalini. The Tribunal, after reviewing the facts and the Ld. Commissioner's decision, dismissed Ground No. 2, as no reason was found to interfere with the Ld. Commissioner's conclusion. Issue 3: Addition of Rs. 47,29,253/- under section 68 of the Act for deduction from creditors without disclosure in current assets: The AO added Rs. 47,29,235/- under section 68 for deducting an advance for property from creditors without proper disclosure. Upon seeking a remand report, the AO stated that the property was not a firm asset and the advance should not be on the balance sheet. The Assessee claimed it was a mistake and rectified it in the subsequent year. The Ld. Commissioner accepted the Assessee's explanation. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. Commissioner's decision, finding no fault with it. Ground No. 3 was dismissed. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Ld. Commissioner's decisions on all issues.
|
