9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned, is factually indeterminate, and requires proper verification and examination at the end of the assessing authority. Matter restored to the file of the AO Addition on account of net profit rate - dis-allowances in respect of various expenditures, for the reason of their being, not adequately evidenced - Held that:- No addition in respect of N.P. rate would by itself arise, i.e., without bringing some adverse material on record, and stands rightly deleted by the CIT(A). Similarly, a mere cryptic statement as to the expenditure being not properly evidenced or fully supported, without pointing out any specific defects, including their nature, and which could easily be done by subjecting the same to a test check, would be of no moment. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain [2006] 156 Taxman 507 (All.) CIT v. M.K. Bros. [1987] 163 ITR 249/30 Taxman 547 (Guj.). 3.1 Like submissions were raised before us by either side. The learned D.R. would, in addition, rely on the decision in the case of T.P. Abdullah v . Asstt. CIT [2012] 207 Taxman 24/20 taxmann.com 402 (Ker.) (Mag.) to impress that no qualification as to the credit being in 'cash' is necessarily required for the same to attract the invocation of section 68, and which is applicable to a trade credit as well. Further, there is no bar for addition u/s 68 and a trading addition for the same year, relying on the decisions in the case of CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) and Gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und to be so, i.e., as being not genuine, as happened in the assessee's own case, where the accumulated unexplained credits appearing under the account head 'lorry hire charges payable' (Rs. 335.33 lakhs), though relating to earlier period/s, stood added as its income for the assessment year 2001-2002. The law in the matter is trite, and the issue is in fact primarily and essentially factual, i.e., whether the assessee has been able to satisfactorily explain the credits appearing in its books of account before the AO or not. It is to be appreciated that any credit, trade or non-trade, is essentially a 'receipt', when construed or considered broadly, i.e., in terms of 'funds', and not narrowly in terms of 'cash', so that it represents the so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Officer (refer page 2 of the assessment order). A final show-cause notice was issued by him on 22/03/2006, stating the said fact, and by way of allowing a last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case, for 24/03/2006, and which (notice) again remained un-responded, even up to the date of passing of the assessment order, i.e., 29/03/2006 (refer page 3 of the assessment order). These facts are not disputed, and neither do we observe any grievance by the assessee qua lack of opportunity before the Assessing Officer being assumed before the learned CIT(A). How, then, we wonder, is the Assessing Officer to be faulted for the proceedings in the manner he does, and whose action stands cancelled/vacated by the ld. CIT(A), leading ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant year/s. Again, the 'fact' that the payments stand made in the following year, as stated before the learned CIT(A), and also pressed before us, and that the profit for the year is in line with the profit rate obtaining for the immediately preceding years, are relevant factors, though without doubt not conclusive of the matter. In fact, the creditors being regular business associates, to whom the payments stand made, so that both the expenditure as well as payment would stand to be adequately vouched and evidenced, we wonder why it is not so, and even as much as the confirmations were not forthcoming. The onus to prove the veracity of its claims is on the assesse, and it cannot shift the same to the Revenue by requiring it to issue summon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uately evidenced. With regard to the addition qua the net profit rate, which has been disclosed at 1.46% (of the gross receipts), we find no basis whatsoever for the same. True, the identical rate as disclosed from year to year, does indicate that the accounts may be not true and correct, and manipulated. So, however, no addition on that score would by itself arise, i.e., without bringing some adverse material on record, and stands rightly deleted by the learned CIT(A). We decide accordingly. 5.2 Similarly, with regard to the other disallowances, we are in agreement, in principle, with the learned CIT(A) that a mere cryptic statement as to the expenditure being not properly evidenced or fully supported, without pointing out any specif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
