9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... creditors were sundry creditors in earlier years which not disputed in earlier Assessment years. Further the learned CIT, Appeals erred not appreciating that, the same have been written back and offered for tax in the Assessment year 2011-12 and the decision of Assessing officer in bringing these to tax amounts to double taxation. 2. The learned CIT, Appeals erred in not appreciating that, the transportation bills were settled in April, 2010 and that these creditors were outstanding as on 31-3-2010. The learned CIT also failed to appreciate that, signatures do vary and it is a human natural process for all. Particularly when the persons are uneducated the variation is bound to be there. 3. The learned CIT, Appeals failed to take note of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they were insisted for accounts purposes thought they were promised of payment in the month of April 2010. These contractors were paid through bank in the month of April.2010, confirmation letters were obtained from them, while closing the account and copies of the same were produced at the time of assessment. The AO issued Notice U/s 133(6) but they were returned by the postal authorities. During the course of the appeal the copies of same confirmation letters were produced before the learned CIT (Appeals) VI. The commissioner desired that some more evidences may be tried. At this point of time the Income Tax Office Bellary, was approached and copies of the acknowledgement of returns filed by three of these parties were obtained and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and because of the same reason we are not able to find out these transport contractors who worked for us. The evidence of bills, bank payments, confirmation letters, and income tax returns, have not been taken into consideration and the prevailing situation of physically non availability of the parties which is beyond the assessee's control has to be considered in the right prospective. Variation in signatures between confirmation letter and return of income is beyond assessee's area of jurisdiction. We have traced out the returns of income on the basis of PAN given by the contractors in the bills. This strong corroborative evidence should have been considered by the learned CIT (Appeals) VI. Notwithstanding this it is also submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Sai Shakthi Minerals, M/s. Dhanalakshmi Logistics in the year ended 31/03/2008. A small amount was paid in April 2008 and balance thereof as outstanding creditors since then. This amount was written off in the year ended 31/03/2011 and offered taxation. Learned AR has produced copies of ledger accounts of these two parties at page Nos. 11-14 of the paper book wherein in the year under consideration, the assessee has written off of this amount in his books of accounts. Similarly, in respect of Dhanalakshmi Logistics, the assessee has written off of this amount and tax on that amount has been paid. We find that assessee has written off of this amount in his books of accounts and paid due taxes, therefore, we are of the view that no addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t at page Nos. 20 & 21, which reveals that amount has been paid by the assessee through RTGS. The assessee has filed the confirmation letter of the said party and also filed copy of income tax return. Therefore in our opinion, no addition can be made. In respect of Hanuman Traders & Veerabhadreshwara Enterprises, the assessee has submitted that these are the transport creditors and payment has been made to both the parties through RTGS. The parties do exist with the Income Tax Department and they have also filed the return of income. We find that the assessee has incurred the expenditure towards transportation and transport contractors received the bills in the month of March and payments were made through banking channel in 2010 and confir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ous year. If any expenditure allowed as a deduction in any of the earlier years and if the amount claimed is recovered subsequently, it is chargeable to tax. The recovery of such expenditure, loss or liability is taxable on the precondition that it was allowed as a deduction in earlier years. Sec. 41(1) is a deeming fiction and burden to prove that a particular benefit or receipt falls within the four corners of the provisions of sec. 41(1) lies upon the revenue. The Assessing Officer has to prove with the help of material or evidence that a deduction or allowance has been allowed to the assessee in earlier years and after such deduction or allowance having been allowed, the assessee has obtained any amount or benefit in respect of the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
