9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n made by AO drawing inference that the outstanding liabilities of the respondent-assessee against the freight payable to the truck owners are not genuine, solely on the basis of statements of a few truck owners recorded as aforesaid, is absolutely unjustified - No Substantial question of law arises in this appeal - decided in favor of assessee. - D B Income Tax Appeal No. 03/2012 - - - Dated:- 13-7-2012 - Arun Mishra and Sangeet Lodha, JJ K.K. Bissa for the Appellant JUDGEMENT Sangeet Lodha, J 1. This appeal u/s 260 A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") is directed against the order dated 21.9.11 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT), Jodhpur Bench,Jodhpur passed in ITA No.600/JDP/2008, whereby the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddresses of the truck owners from the Regional Transport Authority and issued summon to them. The statement of some of the truck owners were recorded and out of them a few were subjected to cross examination on behalf of the assessee. 4. After considering the explanation furnished by the assessee and the material on record, AO arrived at the finding that no trade liability as disclosed in the balance sheet by the assessee is existing, the outstanding liabilities of Rs.34,14,910/- remain unexplained and accordingly, while passing the assessment order dated 28.12.07, the same was added back to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 28.12.07, the respondent-assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the said amount to the total income of the assessee. Learned counsel submitted that the truck owners who were examined by AO have categorically denied the outstanding payments shown by the respondent-assessee and therefore, AO has committed no error in drawing the inference that the liabilities shown outstanding are not existing. Accordingly, it is submitted that the addition made cannot be faulted with. 8. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 9. Indisputably, the respondent-assessee does not own any truck and he had transported the goods by using the trucks available in the market. The dispute raised by AO was regarding the outstanding liabilities of Rs.34,14,910/- disclosed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Similar was the position with regard to other truck owner put to cross examination. Obviously, the statement of various witnesses recorded by AO at the back of the respondent-assessee cannot be used against him. The statement of the truck owners who appeared for cross examination before AO are not found to be creditworthy by the appellate authorities. If the statement of these witnesses are excluded from the consideration , there is no material on record which could justify doubting of the entries by AO. In considered opinion of this court, the addition made by AO drawing inference that the outstanding liabilities of the respondent-assessee against the freight payable to the truck owners are not genuine, solely on the basis of statements of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
