9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bhupendra Shah for the Assessee Rajarshi Dwivedy for the Revenue ORDER R.S. Padvekar, Judicial Member This appeal is filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order of the Ld. CIT (A)-XIV Mumbai dated 17.9.2007 for the A.Y. 1986-87. The assessee has taken the following effective grounds:- I. The Income Tax Officer erred in making addition of Rs.61,74,263/- on account of payment of custom duty from undisclosed sources and the commissioner of Income Tax erred in confirming the order of the Income Tax Officer. II. The Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax Officer (Appeals) further erred is not accepting the submission that even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that the payment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before us to doubt the correctness of the aforesaid finding recorded by the A.O. The burden was indeed on the assessee to offer satisfactory explanation regarding the nature and source of customs duty payment amounting to Rs.46,76,745/-. The assessee failed to do so. The Learned CIT (A) has given reasons for deleting the addition in the fact of such categorical finding recorded by the Assessing Officer. The order of the Learned CAT (A) is therefore set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. It shall be the duty of the assessee to prove the genuineness of high seas sale as also to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of customs duty paid." 3. As per the directions of the Tribunal, the A.O. issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties/buyers. The assessee challenged the assessment order before the Ld. CIT (A) raising the grievance against the addition made in respect of alleged payment of the custom duty but without success. The Ld. CIT (A) confirmed addition by giving the following reasons:- "4.4 I have carefully considered the facts and submissions and am not convinced with the arguments of the appellant In the instant case the ITAT has restored the matter back to the file of the A.O. with specific directions as contained in the paragraph reproduced above. As per the directions of ITAT, it was the duty of the assessee to prove the genuineness of the high seas sales as also to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of customs duty paid.' Now, the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot in the opinion of the Assessing Qfficer, satisfactory, the amount covered by such expenditure or part thereof as the case may be, may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year: (Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, such unexplained expenditure which is deemed to be the income of the assessee shall not be allowed as a deduction under any head of income.)' 5. The assessee has only filed confirmation letters but could not Produce the parties to prove that custom duty in respect of 'high seas sales' was paid by the buyers. Presuming that the assessee could not prove the payment of the custom duty but as rightly argued by the Ld. Counsel,proviso to section 69C is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
