9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Loss account through the “Cartage Account”, there was no reason to assess it again – the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against Revenue. Unidentified Sundry creditors – Held that:- The assessee has challenged the presumption entertained by the AO - the view entertained by the AO that they are outstanding for more than one year is wrong - no creditor’s balance was outstanding for more than six months - CIT(A) shows that the AO has also appears to have acted in a hasty manner on this issue - assessee has expressed its difficulty in procuring and furnishing the details that were called for by the AO - These explanations of the assessee requires examination at the end of the AO – thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO for f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Co. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by the assessee declaring a total income of ₹ 19.18 lakhs. In the scrutiny proceedings, the assessing officer noticed from the ITS details that the assessee has received contract receipts of ₹ 79,77,554/- from M/s Haldyn Glass Gujrat Ltd. The AO was of the view that the assessee did not declare the same in his return of income and hence sought clarification from the assessee. In response thereto, the assessee submitted that he has received a sum of ₹ 87,24,320/- from M/s Haldyn Glass Gujrat Ltd during the year under consideration. He further submitted that the above said receipt represents transportation charges reimbursed to him by the above said compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and outstanding amount in respect of each of them ranged from ₹ 17,000/- to ₹ 74,000/-. The AO noticed that the assessee has claimed that he has made purchases exceeding ₹ 20,000/- from two persons viz., M/s G.M. Breweries Ltd and M/s Vishal Glass. Hence, the AO presumed that most of the creditors are outstanding for more than one year. The AO was of the view that the lower income groups only collect empty bottles and broken glasses from streets and sell them to the assessee. Hence, they could not afford to give credit to the assessee. Hence, the AO concluded that the outstanding amount of ₹ 73,54,879/- represents bogus creditors and accordingly assessed the same as business income of the assessee. 3.2 The AO als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business income was estimated, the Ld CIT(A) held that there is no requirement of making separate disallowances debited in the Profit and Loss account and accordingly deleted the disallowance made out of telephone, staff welfare, Conveyance expenses etc. Aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A), the revenue has filed this appeal before us. 5. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record. The Ld D.R strongly defended the order passed by the AO on the impugned issues. On the contrary, the ld A.R placed strong reliance on the order of ld CIT(A). 6. The first issue relates to the addition of ₹ 87,24,320/-, being the amount received from M/s Haldyn Glass Gujarat Ltd. We notice that the assessing officer has assessed the abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so brought the same to the Profit and Loss account through the Cartage Account , we do not find any reason to assess it again. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the decision taken by ld CIT(A) on this issue. 7. The next issue relates to the assessment of Sundry creditors balance of ₹ 73,54,879/-. The AO assessed the same on the reasoning that (a) the suppliers of empty bottles and broken glasses are poor people, who could not afford giving credit to the assessee. (b) the assessee has failed to furnish relevant details concerning the Sundry creditors. (c) the assessee has effected purchases exceeding ₹ 20,000/- only from two persons and hence the remaining parties are poor people and their balance is outst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtained by the AO that they are outstanding for more than one year is wrong. He has also pointed out that the purchases exceeding ₹ 20,000/- was effected from more than two persons and accordingly submitted that the observations made by the AO in this regard is also wrong. He has also submitted that no creditor s balance was outstanding for more than six months. The above submissions made by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) shows that the assessing officer has also appears to have acted in a hasty manner on this issue. 10. In any case, there should not be any doubt that the responsibility to prove the genuineness of the Sundry creditors lies upon the assessee. In this regard, the assessee has submitted before the Ld CIT(A) and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
