9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Department from the creditors. All of them were furnished to him. No objections were raised by him. Thus the plea of the assessee that accepting the statement of the creditors without granting an opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine is incorrect. Therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in upholding the impugned additions by applying the provisions of Section 41(1) and Section 68 - That the statement of the creditors were accepted, after granting substantial opportunity to the assessee, wherein the assessee has not made any request to cross-examine the witnesses and therefore, cannot contend that no opportunity was given to cross-examine the creditors. Decided in favour of the Revenue - INCOME TAX ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on 31-3-2006, which is to be considered as a return filed in response to the notice. The assessee was heard. 2. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to produce the details of sundry creditors with complete addresses and confirmation letters from the creditors. He furnished the list of creditors with addresses in 39 cases and in 10 cases, no addresses were provided. No confirmation letter was filed by the assessee, in spite of several reminders, except in 2 cases. Thereafter, letters were addressed to the sundry creditors as per the addresses given by the assessee. In response to these letters, 23 creditors have furnished the details called for. On considering the same, it is found that the return of incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade creditors represents persons who have supplied goods and to whom the assessee has not paid purchase consideration at the end of the relevant assessment years. d. If at all the said amount is to be assessed it should be assessed u/s.68 of the I.T. Act. e. By applying the provision of Sec. 68, the so called Credit should pertain to that previous year i.e. previous year ended on 31-3-2005 and hence any credit pertaining to any other previous year cannot be charged to tax for the previous year ended on 31-3-2006, i.e. A.Y.2005-06. The assessee has also furnished details of such amounts which totals to ₹ 32,39,713/- in the said letter. The assessee contended further that out of ₹ 35,33,289/- proposed by me f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 99/- is proven to be no longer liable and as the trading liability ceased to exist, it was added back to the returned income as cessation of liability and the balance amount of ₹ 14,99,711/- was also proven to be not a genuine and this, too, was added back to the returned income as unexplained credits. Questioning the same, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was dismissed. The same was challenged before the Tribunal, which was also dismissed. Hence, the present appeal. 4. By the order dated 13-6-2011, the appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial question of law: Whether the finding of the Tribunal upholding the impugned addition made by applying the provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d or the benefit was not taken by the assessee in respect of such trade liability, the conditions precedent were not satisfied for invoking Section 41(1) of the Act in the instant case. 6. The same is disputed by Sri K.V. Aravind, the learned counsel for the respondent. He contends that the judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. In the said judgment, the creditors could not be traced on the date when the verification was made. However, in the instant case, i.e. the creditors have replied and he places reliance on paragraph No.5.1 of the order of the Assessing Officer. He pleads that details of the outstanding balances as confirmed by 23 sundry creditors amounts to ₹ 24,579/- as against ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unity to the assessee. Therefore, on failure to grant such opportunity, the impugned orders become untenable. Therefore, by placing reliance on the said judgment, she pleads that an opportunity to cross-examine may be granted. 9. The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. These are not statements made on oath. These are replies given by the creditors. Therefore, the question of enabling the assessee to cross-examine them is misplaced. He further contends that there was no request made by the assessee to cross-examine these persons. 10. The reply furnished by the assessee has been extracted at paragraph No.7 of the assessment order therein. There is no request made by the assessee seeking to cross-examine any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
