9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... genuineness of the claim on account of labour charges cannot be discarded without any material to make an adverse finding. We do not find any such reason other than an arbitrary disallowance of 10% which cannot be sustained and, therefore, we direct deletion of the same. Amount from savings bank account of Union Bank of India - Held that:- When the cash flow statement along with the statement of bank account from 01.02.2008 to 06.03.2008 stands reconciled, therefore, the assessee has been able to explain the cash deposited in the bank account and, therefore, the addition u/s. 68 of the Act was not warranted. The authorities below on surmise and conjecture have disbelieved the sales of gold as well as the money transferred from one branch to another branch of the assessee, which have been explained before us. The authorities below without conducting proper enquiries have simply disbelieved the evidence furnished before them and has made the addition which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and, therefore, we are inclined to allow this ground of appeal of the assessee. - I.T.A. No. 574/Kol/2015 - - - Dated:- 4-10-2017 - Shri A. T. Varkey, JM And Dr. A. L. Saini, AM Fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd., (a Govt. undertaking). However, due to more work and insufficient space for carrying out the work, the assessee had started another business centre under the name and style of M/s. Sarada Enterprise at 7, Antony Bagan Lane, Kolkata-700 009. According to the assessee, out of the book binding job undertaken of ₹ 49.68 lacs, job valuing ₹ 11,52,007/- was allocated to M/s. Sarada Enterprise. The assessee through Shiva Shakti Binders had advanced from 07.04.2007 to 11.03.2008 a total amount of ₹ 18,24,189 to M/s. Sarada Enterprise. The Ld. AR drew our attention to pages 12 and 13 of the paper book from which this fact is evident and page no. 13 reveals that an amount of ₹ 11,52,105/- was disbursed as labour charges and ₹ 6,72,084/- was the balance amount. In order to prove the veracity of the claim of disbursement of labour charges, the AO had asked the assessee to produce some of the labourers and the AO acknowledges the fact that the assessee had in fact produced some labourers before him. According to the AO, certain bills were not signed and the payments were made mostly in cash, therefore, he made an estimated disallowance of 10% which comes to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Shiva Shakti Binders undertook job work for ₹ 49.68 lacs, out of which job work of ₹ 11,52,000/- was allocated to M/s. Sarada Enterprise. According to the assessee, in order to raise money for running business in the new business centre M/s. Sarada Enterprise the assessee had sold some jewellery worth about ₹ 2,02,199/-. The AO noted that on verification of the ITS details that the assessee had deposited an amount of ₹ 10,05,000/- in the S.B. Account with Union Bank of India. According to the AO, since the Ld. AR of the assessee failed to explain the cash deposited in Union Bank of India, the same was added as income from undisclosed sources. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) disbelieved the claim of the assessee that he raised ₹ 2,20,199/- through sale of gold and the Ld. CIT(A) wondered as to how the assessee would be getting for the old un hall marked jewellery of 22 ct. price fixed on that day. The AO in the remand report also found fault with the bills produced by the assessee showing the sale consideration of ₹ 2,02,199/- by finding fault with the bill nos. We note that according to AO, during remand proceeding, the entire bills were produced be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the mind of Ld. CIT(A) which led him not to accept the claim of the assessee when the assessee had produced the bills which dates from 05.04.2007 to 15.09.2007. The AO found fault on the fact that the assessee has sold gold not at the beginning of the business whereas we note that the assessee has in fact started selling the gold from 05.04.2007 i.e. from the April, 2007 upto 16.09.2007 thus raising an amount of ₹ 2.02,199/- which cannot be disbelieved only on the basis of surmises and conjecture when the fact of the matter is that bills evidencing sale of gold was in fact produced before the lower authorities. In case the AO/CIT(A) was of the opinion that bills were bogus they were free to summon the jewellery shop owner and verified the veracity of the claim. However, no such action was undertaken by the AO/CIT(A). By producing the bills of sale of gold the assessee has discharged the onus on him and thereafter if the AO had any doubt subsisting in his mind then he should have exercised the powers vested in him to investigate and find out the truth, without that, finding of the authorities below are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, the contention of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
