9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 758X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts correctly. Non-appearance of ₹ 4,50,000 – Assessee claimed that it has been paid by cheque trough IOB – Held that:- The payment has been made to M/s. Singareni Collieries on behalf of M/s. Nasreen Old Iron Traders - the person who has advanced the money, namely, Shri Jani Miya, is a man of substance, as he has bid for a tender of ₹ 8 crores, and is having a OD limit of ₹ 20 lakhs - his creditworthiness is beyond doubt - as far as the assessee is concerned, the source for the credit has been established, by discharging the onus of proving the identity of the creditor, his credit worthiness and also the genuineness of the transaction - there is no justification for any addition in the hands of the assessee, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sworn statement was recorded form one Shri Jani Miya, Prop of M/s. Nasreen Old iron Traders, who had confirmed the transactions with the assessee and all the receipts are through drafts only. He also submitted confirmation letters from eight persons, who have invested the said amount in the business from out of their accumulated savings from agricultural income. The Assessing Officer did not believe the confirmation letters filed in that behalf, on the ground that the said persons did not respond to the summons issued under S.131 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has also recorded sworn statement from the assessee, who stated that the stocks were received by him, as expected and hence, he did not supply the same to M/s. Nasreen Old Iron Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the relevant facts and evidence submitted in support of the version of the assessee, made the impugned addition of ₹ 41,76,000. Considering some of the documents furnished by the assessee before him, which constituted additional evidence and the petition of the assessee under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, for admission of such additional evidence, Assessing Officer remanded the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer, calling for his comments. After considering the remand report of the Assessing Officer, wherein he justified the addition of ₹ 41,76,000 made, and the submissions of the assessee on such remand report as well, the CIT(A) deleted the addition of ₹ 41,76,000 made by the Assessing Officer 5. Aggrieve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs entered into a transaction of supply of material of more than ₹ 1 core and has made a bid for purchase from Singareni Collereis and the assessee through its sister concern has paid the balance amount in this transaction, by way of draft on behalf of M/s. Nasreen Old Iron Traders. The learned counsel submitted copies of the bank statements and also statements from the books of M/s. Sunil Castings and M/s. Maheswari Brothers, wherein the parties have confirmed the transaction from their end. He submitted that this statement proves that M/s. Nasreen Old Iron Traders were paid ₹ 72,76,255. It was also pointed out that another statement of M/s. Nasreen Old Iron Traders would demonstrate that that ₹ 72,76,255 is paid to M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor of M/s. Nasreen Old Iron Traders Khammam, and the amount was received though drafts. The Assessing Officer disbelieved the receipt on two counts. Firstly, there are certain contradictions between the statement of the assessee and that of the creditors; and secondly, the creditor has not proved the credit-worthiness of the person from whom he has borrowed the funds. The first discrepancy in the statements of the assessee and that of the creditor, as observed by the Assessing Officer, is that the assessee has stated that he has adjusted the account of the creditor by debiting M/s. Nasreen Old Iron Traders and crediting M/s. Maheswari Brothers, whereas earlier he has stated that the same is adjusted by debiting M/s. Iron Old Iron Traders a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ging the onus of proving the identity of the creditor, his credit worthiness and also the genuineness of the transaction, but what the Assessing Officer has been insisting was for proving the sources of the source, and even the alleged creditor has owned up the transaction. That being so, there is no justification for any addition in the hands of the assessee, and if at all, any such addition is warranted, that has to be examined in the hands of the creditor of the assessee, viz. Shri Jani Miya in this case. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer was not justified in concluding that the person who has claimed to have paid the amount has no sources and hence, the amount should be treated as belonging to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
