9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... line with the preceding assessment year. Further, the trade creditors in the earlier years, i.e., A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09 stand accepted in scrutiny assessments. Thus, the genuineness of the expenses under consideration cannot be doubted. Moreover, the genuineness of the expenditure was not at all called into question. It was only that non verification thereof raised doubts of the in-occurrence thereof. Then, even if the credits concerning the purchases and transportation of the material are not to be accepted, as discussed, still, the provisions of section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked to make the addition. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 149(Asr)/2016 - - - Dated:- 23-6-2016 - A. D. Jain (Judicial Member) And T. S. Kapoor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the comments that the address was incomplete. The AO examined the books of account produced by the assessee and observed that the entries were made under the head Freight, Octroi Cartage and that the entries pertained mainly to February and March, 2009. It was also stated that the credits had been shown in the books of account under the registration number of the vehicle and not in the name of any person. A tabular chart was also prepared by the AO to indicate that the addresses shown by the assessee were different from the address as per the DTO, Amritsar, in respect of certain specific trucks. It was also contended that the truck drivers, whose addresses were furnished, were different from the truck owners. These discrepancies were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision of the Supreme Court in the case of A. Govindarajula Mudaliar vs. CIT , reported at 34 ITR 807 and CIT vs. M. Ganapathi Mudhaliar , reported at 54 ITR 623 and the decision of the Hon ble Calcutta high Court in the case of Shanker Industries vs. CIT , 114 ITR 689. 2.1. The AO summed it up by stating that the credit entries totaling to ₹ 83,18,322/- are not genuine and, therefore, these were added back as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Even the case laws cited by the AO were with reference to section 68 of the Act. 3. By virtue of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO and dismissed the assessee s appeal. 3. Before us, it has been contended that the provisions of section 68 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issions (APB 37 to 160, relevant portion at para-5, on page 43) dated 10.05.2014 filed before the CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has, however, not addressed this grievance at all and merely upheld the addition made under section 68 of the Act. On behalf of the assessee, a comparative chart of net profit rate of the assessee for the assessment years 2005-06 to 1011-12 has been filed before us. In the earlier years also, no such addition was made. For the assessment year 2007-08, under scrutiny assessment, the assessment was made at 8%. The position remained much the same for the assessment year 2008-09. The year under consideration is assessment year 2009-10. The material supplied to the assessee by the concerned department is part of the assessee s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
