9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 29.8.2012 in ITA No. 4000/M/2012 had set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the matter back to him for passing a fresh order. The Tribunal also directed the Ld. CIT(A) for remanding the matter to the AO for necessary enquiry. 3. The dispute revolves around the verification of purchase and genuineness thereof. The impugned parties are as under: S. No. Name of the party Purchase (Rs.) Sundry Creditors (Rs.) 1. Vijay Transport ---- 374960 2. Siddhivinayak Corporation 2051744 2004953 3. Hetal Sales Corporation --- 624721 4. Naman Enterprises 1269911 1269911 5. Parvati Transport --- 564895 6. Psanda Transport ---- 564796 7. Vishal Transport --- 695510 8. Irfan Transport --- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... celled 7. Padmavati Corporation VAT Cancelled 8. Om Corporation 359 VAT Cancelled 3.2. The AO formed a belief that the assessee has failed to establish the genuineness of the purchases. Relying upon certain judicial decisions, the AO at para 4.7 of his order finally concluded that the total purchases claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs. 90,07,915/- is unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act and added the same. The AO further treated Rs. 61,53,921/- being sundry creditors as income of the assessee u/s. 41(1) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by these two additions, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A). It was strongly contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has discharged the onus of proving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the part payments have been made, the Ld. CIT(A) gave relief of Rs. 25,24,640/-and confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs. 36,29,281/-. 5. Aggrieved by these decision of the Ld. CIT(A) both Revenue and assessee is before us. 5.1 Let us first take the appeal of the Revenue. The sole grievance relates to the deletion of the addition made on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C in relation to the purchases of Rs. 90,07,915/-. Section 69C read as under: "Where in any financial year an assessee has incurred any expenditure and he offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure or part thereof, or the explanation, if any, offered by him is not, in the opinion of the (Assessing) Officer, satisfactory, the amount covered b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shree Enterprises 1. Hetal Sales Corporation 624,721 2. Sandesh Sales Corpn. 298,469 3. Shakti Trading Co. 851,490 1,774,680/- Gajanan Transport 1. Irfan Transport 629,091 2. K.J. Transport ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was paid on 12.10.2010. Similarly in the case of Sandesh Sales Corporation, the payment has been made on 31.12.2009, Shakti Trading Company the payment has been made on 2.5.2009, 29.5.2009, 18.12.2009 and 3.2.2010. Similarly, all the transporters mentioned hereinabove have been paid in subsequent years. The payment made is evident from the copies of the ledger account exhibited at pages 71 to 79 of the paper book. As the creditors have been paid in the subsequent years, it cannot be said that during the year under consideration, there was a cessation of liability, provisions of Sec. 41(1) do not apply on the facts of the case. We, accordingly set aside the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 36,29,281/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
