9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 418X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ational and reasonable estimate of disallowance @10% of purchases towards disputes of the assessee-firm with creditors for purchases towards rate overcharging claim , claims for expired products etc which is very rational and reasonable estimate , more-so keeping in view that unfortunately the assessee-firm has consistently chosen a path of non cooperative attitude during assessment proceedings as well appellate proceedings. The assessee-firm again chose not to avail opportunity of being heard before the Tribunal. We have no hesitation in confirming the well reasoned order of the CIT(A) dated 12.04.2011 making rational and reasonable estimate of disallowance of ₹ 6,14,124/- @10% of purchases of ₹ 61,41,240/- during the year - Decided against assessee - I .T.A. No.7529/Mum/2012 - - - Dated:- 30-3-2016 - SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : None For The Revenue : Mr. Premanand J.,Dr ORDER PER RAMIT KOCHAR, Accountant Member This appeal, filed by the assessee-firm, being ITA No. 7529/Mum/2012, is directed against the order dated 12-04-2011 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and creditworthiness of the creditors taken by the assessee-firm.The assessee-firm only submitted that the friendly loans were taken from family members and no loan has been returned by the assessee-firm. The AO treated the said loan as unexplained cash credits as no details were furnished and the amount of ₹ 48,23,253/- was added to the income of the assessee-firm as the assessee-firm failed to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors, vide assessment order dated 29-12-2009 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 29-12-2009 passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act, the assessee-firm filed first appeal with the CIT(A). 7. There were no submissions made by the assessee-firm before the CIT(A) neither any details / confirmations were filed before the CIT(A) despite the assessee-firm entering appearance before the CIT(A) for seeking adjournments before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) duly considered the statement of fact filed by the assessee firm attached to grounds of appeal whereby it was stated by the assessee-firm that the loans were raised from friends and relatives and no amount was returned during the year and the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also before the Tribunal. Thus keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation in confirming the orders of the CIT(A) sustaining the additions of ₹ 48,23,752/- to the income of the assessee-firm as un-explained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. We order accordingly. 10. Ground no 2 relates to additions made u/s 41(1) of the Act with respect to ceased liability of which additions were made by the AO to the tune of ₹ 28,30,227/- which was confirmed by the CIT(A) to the tune of ₹ 6,14,124/-. The assessee-firm is in appeal with the Tribunal with respect to sustaining of the additions u/s.41(1) of the Act by the CIT(A). The Revenue filed an appeal bearing ITA No. 5115/Mum/2011 before the Tribunal with respect to deletion by the CIT(A) of the additions made u/s 41(1) of the Act by the AO to the tune of ₹ 22,16,103/- , which appeal of the Revenue was dismissed by the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench E vide orders dated 29-08-2012. 11. It was seen by the AO from perusal of the Balance Sheet that the assessee-firm has shown an amount of ₹ 60,99,168/- under the head Sundry Creditors and in-spite of several opportunities, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tness of the expenditure of purchases claimed in the Profit and Loss Account. Since , no details has been given of the creditors by the assesseefirm and vague explanation has been given without specific details, genuineness of the purchases claimed cannot be accepted on the face of it. The assessee-firm itself claimed that the creditors have overcharged , which itself suggests that purchases claimed are excessive and hence 10% of purchases of ₹ 61,41,240/- was considered to be excessive claim of the purchases debited in Profit and Loss Account on account of rate difference, expiry etc. and hence the additions of ₹ 28,30,227/- made by the AO was restricted to ₹ 6,14,124/- on account of purchases not proved in absence of the details furnished by the assessee-firm in respect of sundry creditors for purchases, vide orders dated 12.4.2011. 14. Aggrieved by the orders dated 12.4.2011 passed by the CIT(A), the assessee-firm filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 15. Before the Tribunal, none appeared for the assessee-firm nor any submissions/details/explanations are filed with respect to disallowance of ₹ 6,14,124/- confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of un-prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
