9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1011X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO - The AO disbelieved all those documents and statement of those creditors for one reason or the other - The CIT(A) rightly held that the AO was not justified in making addition as an unexplained credit – the Tribunal was right in confirming the order of deleting the addition of Rs. 9,83,935/- made u/s 68 of the Act - So far as deletion of addition of Rs. 9,83,935/- made u/s 68 of the Act is concerned, there was no substantial question of law arises – Decided against Revenue. - Tax Appeal No. 45 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 20-2-2014 - MR. SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. For the Appellant: Mr. Deepak Roshan, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. B. Poddar, Sr. Advocate M/s Darshana Poddar, Mahendra Choudhary, Piyush Poddar Amrita Sinha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as against 5.92%. Such action of the Assessing Officer has resulted in an addition of Rs.7,21,717/-. 3. In the appeal preferred by the assessee, C.I.T. (Appeals) deleted the addition of Rs.7,21,717/- made under Section 145(2) observing that the addition has been made by the Assessing Officer entirely on mere suspicion and since the assessee is maintaining the accounts at regular basis and there is no deviation from any known system of accounting during the year under consideration as well as in the earlier years, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified and accordingly CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition. 4. The Assessing Officer, during the course of assessment proceedings, observed that the assessee has taken loan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that even the Assessing Officer in paragraph (15) of the assessment order had clearly summarized the serious defects and held that the sales are unverifiable because of serious defects noticed and while so, C.I.T (Appeals) was not right in making observation that the addition has been made by the Assessing Officer entirely on mere suspicion and the Tribunal has not considered this aspect in proper prospective. 8. We have heard Mr. B. Poddar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee and Mr. Deepak Roshan learned counsel for the Revenue. 9. Learned senior counsel has drawn our attention to the appellate order passed by C.I.T.(Appeals) and submitted that the C.I.T.(Appeals) recorded a factual finding that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supply of coal on day-to-day basis and also does not take into account the escalation in price effected by Coal India Ltd. December, 1995 onwards; (vi) The method adopted by the assessee at Cost +30/- for determining the Selling Price is also not test to reasons because of the fact that coal is an item which has got a very high demand in the market and, therefore, the selling price cannot be uniform for each and every day throughout the year. 11. After summarising the above defects, the Assessing Officer proceeded to observe that the assessee wanted to show for manipulating the profit and on this finding the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 7,21,717/- under Section 145 (2) of the I.T. Act. 12. The C.I.T. (Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessing Officer was not justified and on this finding, the I.T.A.T confirmed the order of C.I.T.(Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs. 7,21,717/- made under Section 145 (2) of the Act. 14. We are of the view that the C.I.T.(Appeals) has observed that all the quantitative details are available in the books of Account and that the accounts are regularly maintained and on those factual findings deleted the addition made by Assessing Officer, which was confirmed by the I.T.A.T and we are of the view that no substantial question of law arises in respect of deletion of addition of Rs. 7,21,717/-made under Section 145(2). 15. The Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs. 9,83,935/- as an unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;ble Patna High Court has held if the loans are given by an account paying cheque, it amounts to identification of the parties and discharge of burden by the borrower. Here, I find that the major creditors namely, S/sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, Radheshayam Kunwar and Ram Babu Singh were summoned under Section 131 of the I.T. Act and in respect of other creditors who are mainly ladies, the assessment particulars as also bank accounts were laid before the Assessing Officer for his determination. The Assessing Officer has merely disbelieved the version of the cash creditors and has come to the conclusion that they have no creditworthiness or means to advance loans to the appellant. It has been held in the case of Girdhar Agency v. Asstt. CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
