9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me is to take effect retrospectively. - Decided in favour of assessee Estimation of profits @ 8% - Held that:- Since the audited books of accounts with supporting evidences were produced before the ld. CIT(A), the First Appellate Authority should have examined the books of accounts as his powers are co-terminus to that of the A.O. We find that the First Appellate Authority has not verified the details himself and again depended upon the A.O. We further find that in the immediately preceding assessment year on a turnover of ₹ 1.49 crores, the assessee has shown net profit @ 2.49%, whereas for the year under consideration on a turnover of ₹ 2.49 crores, the assessee has shown net profit @ 2.02%. On an increase of the turnover b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reply, the A.O treated the unsecured loans amounting to ₹ 6,10,500/- as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. 4. Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) but without any success. 5. Before us, the ld. counsel could not adduce any evidence to explain the genuineness of the transaction and the capacity of the loan creditors. In our considered opinion, the initial onus cast upon the assessee by virtue of the provisions of Section 68 has not been discharged. Therefore, we decline to interfere with the findings of the First Appellate Authority; ground no. 1 is dismissed. Ground no. 2 relates to the addition made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the A.O found that the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd. There is no denying that the tax was deposited by the assessee in the month of April, 2007. It is also an admitted fact that the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. in Tax Appeal No. 680 of 2014 has held that the amendments to Section 40(a)(ia) allowing deduction for the payment, on which TDS has been made and paid into Government Account before the due date for furnishing the return of income is to take effect retrospectively. 11. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court (supra), we direct the A.O to delete the addition of ₹ 75,63,523/-.Ground no. 2 is allowed. Ground no. 3 relates to the estimation of profits @ 8%. 12. While scrutinizing the sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee once again stated that the books of accounts are audited; therefore, no adverse inference should be drawn. The ld. counsel further drew our attention to the net profit earned in A.Y. 2006-07. It is the say of the ld. counsel that in the immediately preceding year, the assessee has earned net profit at 2.49%. Therefore, there is no justification in estimating the net profit @ 8%. 15. Per contra, the ld. D.R. strongly supported the assessment orders. 16. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the facts in issues and have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. Undisputedly, the assessment is made u/s. 144 of the Act., since the assessee did not comply with various notices/opportunities, the A.O estimated the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
