9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they are not proved false or fraudulent. Notwithstanding the fact, the rejection of books of account, the matter disclosed by the assessee, other material has to be collected by the AO which should have formed the basis of computation of income. In the present case, the assessee having submitted the copies of accounts and complete postal addresses of all the parties is a matter of record and the AO has not collected any adverse material. The assessee having proved the identity, capacity and creditworthiness of said persons and therefore cannot be subject matter of addition. Thus addition deleted - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 170 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 11-8-2015 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Ramendra Jain, JJ. For the Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to preceding year, as per copies of accounts, is perverse being contrary to material on record because it is the admitted fact that the assessee has not submitted confirmation of copies of accounts, books of accounts, for which his books of accounts have already been rejected under section 145(3) of the Act? iv)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of Hon'ble ITAT under para No.11 of the judgment to the effect that the amount of ₹ 26,30,038/- is outstanding for the last many years as per the acknowledgment of return and PAN of concerned persons and proved their identity, capacity and creditworthiness, is perverse being contrary to material on record because it is the admitted fact on record that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal. Vide order dated 15.2.2013, Annexure A.3, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal holding that the assessee having proved the identity, capacity and credit worthiness of the said persons, deleted the additions of ₹ 14,74,763/- and ₹ 26,30,038/-. Hence the instant appeal by the revenue. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Tribunal erred in deleting the additions of ₹ 14,74,763/- and ₹ 26,30,038/-. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order dated 15.2.2013, Annexure A.3 passed by the Tribunal. 6. It has been categorically recorded by the Tribunal that the assessee had submitted the copies of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tten back such liability unilaterally in its books of account. Therefore, such liability cannot be a subject matter of section 41(1) of the Act. It is also a matter of record in the order of the AO where the assessee had made some payments during the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, which the AO at page 2 has mentioned in his order. Inspite of such facts on record, the matter did not find favour to the AO and confirmation made by the learned CIT(A) in a summary manner is not justified. The assessee is assessed to income tax regularly, is on record and sundry creditors are outstanding as per last year for which assessment record was available with the AO which was argued by the learned counsel and was not rebutted by the learned DR in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acknowledgment of income tax return at PB- 75, 76 and 77 alongwith PAN is placed on record. The AO after applying his mind has made the addition of family loans of ₹ 26,30,038/- which has been confirmed by the learned CIT (A). The arrangements made by the learned DR has no substance in the matter in this regard. The assessee having proved the identity, capacity and creditworthiness of said persons and therefore cannot be subject matter of addition. Thus, both the additions of ₹ 14,74,763/- and ₹ 26,30,038/- have wrongly been confirmed by the learned CIT(A) and the same are directed to be deleted. The findings recorded by the Tribunal have not been shown to be erroneous or perverse by the learned counsel for the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
