9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 707X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10 - - - Dated:- 8-6-2012 - SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, AND SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, JJ. Appellant by : Shri A.V.Raghuram Respondent by : Shri K.E.Sunil Babu O R D E R Per D.Karunakara Rao, Accountant Member: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) VI, Hyderabad dated 30.9.2010 for the assessment year 2004-05. 2. Effective grounds of the assessee in this appeal read as follows- 1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is erroneous both on grounds in law. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.25,00,000 made by the AO treating the payment by the firm M/s. SPM Telecom to M/s. Ascent Plant Machinery as income of the assessee without appreciating the fact there is no material what so ever to prove that the assessee ever received it. 3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that even assuming that the amount paid by the firm did not reach the third party it can neither become the income of the firm nor a single partner unless it is proved that the said amount reached either the firm or the said partner and thereby erred in confirming the addition holding that the AO made lot of efforts without appreciatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... closed on -07-06-2004) The Assessing officer, further enquired and found that the two firms, Ms/. Dhanalaxmi Corporation and M/s. Ganesh Trading Co. were not carrying any trade at the given address and no information was available about the proprietors of the above said concerns. The Assessing officer also stated in the assessment order that no complaint was filed by the appellant so as to enquire as who has encashed the said cheques. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the appellant was asked to explain the loss of Rs.25 lakhs and the responsibility of the Managing Partner in such a loss. In response to the same, the appellant stated that he has nothing to do with the said transactions in his personal capacity . The Assessing officer further posed certain questions given as under to the Managing Partner. a. The managing partner has signed the cehques. b. While other cheques to the same supplier were made account payee why these three cheques were not account payee but made Co. . It may be mentioned that Co. cheques can be discounted whereas account payees cheques cannot. c. When other cheques given to the same supplier were in favour of M/s. Ascent Pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng at the said conclusion and sustaining the addition of Rs.25 lakhs made by the assessing officer on that count, the CIT(A) has given the following reasons a) The identity of the two trading houses and their relationship with M/s. Ascent Plant and Machinery Pvt. Ltd. is not established. b) Genuineness of the transaction that the payment was received by M/s. Ascent Plant and Machinery Pvt. Ltd. is absent. c) The assessment particulars of the two trading houses were not furnished by the appellant and the appellant s relationship with them is strange because he has not raised any hue and cry when the cheques were discounted by them and such a loss is unreported. This clearly establishes that the appellant is aware as to where his money is lying and he could not discharge his burden of proof with justification. d) The two trading firms are not a party to the transactions that took place between the appellant and the supplier, i.e. M/s. Ascent Plant and Machinery Pvt. Ltd., and it seems that the appellant tried to create confusion to siphon off the money as he could not produce any evidence either from M/s. Ascent Plant and Machinery Pvt. Ltd, or the two trading firms that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eturn, the supplier, i.e. M/s. Ascent Plant and Machinery Pvt. Ltd. received over a period of time, the cheques in question totaling to Rs.1,38,73,600/-. As per the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee, it is the supplier who got the cheques discounted using the aegis of M/s. Dhanalaxmi Corporation and M/s. Ganesh Trading Co., and the assessee has no role whatsoever to play in those affairs. The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee argued by stating that the reasoning given by both the authorities below are driven by suspicion and surmises. The assessing officer has no evidence to show that the said sum of Rs.25-lakhs reached the assessee in any form. He further mentioned that none of these concerns are connected to the assessee and therefore, these concerns have no reason to cooperate with the assessee in any form, especially in siphoning of the said sum of Rs.25 lakhs. He submitted that the transaction between the supplier and M/s. SPM Telecom is a commercial transaction and there is no scope whatsoever to siphon off the cash for the assessee. Otherwise, the learned counsel, relied on the submissions made before the lower authorities. 8. On the other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
