9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to ground of Revenue we find that the assessee has furnished details like copy of ledger account acknowledgment receipts, IT Return, Bank Statement and Cash Book, audited report. Further, the AO has also given a finding that the transaction is genuine in his remand report as mentioned in the para 5 of the appellate order. Therefore, merely because the person concerned were not appeared before the AO does not mean that the aforesaid creditors are not genuine. In the light of these facts, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the ld.CIT(A), accordingly same is upheld, therefore, ground no.1 of the Revenue of appeal is also dismissed. Addition of labour expenses - NP estimation - Held that:- Cash must be paid to these labourers and truck drivers from source which are not disclosed to the data. This, itself states that there is no doubt in genuineness of the expenditure but AO had made estimation of the undisclosed sources for such expenditure. We further find that on similar facts in the case of sister concern of the assessee ITAT had estimated the net profit @1.4%. - I.T.A. No.55 /RJT/2007, I.T.A. No.148/RJT/2007 - - - Dated:- 7-12-2018 - Shri C.M. Garg, Judicia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tely cheque was given to the assessee on the same day. This clearly indicates source of Kewar Carrier Handling Tr. Co. Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Bhuj/ITA No s.55(A) 148(D)AY:2003-04 Page 4 of 12 credit and in capacity of the persons to give such credit on his own. Therefore, the CIT(A) held that the question drawn by the AO in remand report that credit is bogus cannot be disputed and the addition of ₹ 14 lakhs on this account was therefore sustained. However, the CIT(A) has deleted the addition in respect of Gayatri Transport of ₹ 3 lakhs as the assessee has produced primary evidence to address of party, PAN was given by the assessee the loan was repaid during the year under consideration, thus, a cleared up credit the difference in signature is only issue. The AO further observed that investigated when once same secondary evidence about the genuineness of the creditor is indicating. The creditor is assessed to tax at Gandhidham, therefore, this addition was deleted. Similarly, addition of ₹ 14,20,000/- in respect of Al-Karim Handling Transport Co. was deleted on the ground that AO has given the finding that the transaction is genuine in his remand report copies of acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sr.DR submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the same as the proprietor of the Amit Handling Agency has denied in his statement before the AO to have given any cash credit to the assessee and accepted that he has given cheques out of cash received from the assessee. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the assessee has taken loan from Shri M.Mehta, Proprietor of Amit Handling Agencies on October 19th, November 22nd and December 19th total to ₹ 14 lakhs. The perusal of bank statement shows that the assessee Shri M.Mehta has deposited cash of ₹ 2 lakhs on 19.10.2002, ₹ 5.5 lakhs on 22.11.2002 and ₹ 6.5 lakhs on 19.12.2002 and immediately thereafter cheques were given to the assessee on respective date. Further, this fact is also confirmed by the Shri M.Mehta recorded on oath u/s.131 of the Act wherein he deposed that he has given 3 cheques to Shri Latif Ayub Kewar, partner of M/s.Kewar Handling and Transporting Company and he deposited those in his bank account and he was the person who deposited those amount in his bank account and got the cheqeus cleared, the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t making addition on account of unpaid labour charges to modify the order of CIT(A) by directing the AO to estimate net profit at 1.75% instead of 1.41 % shown by the assessee. The CIT(A), therefore observed that the facts of the case in the sister concerns and also the assessee regarding the unpaid expenditure is same. The AO had also not made out the case even on sample items to confirm the AO s belief and cash might have been paid on account of labour and other expenses. Therefore, the CIT(A) following the order of ITAT has directed the AO to take net profit at 2% in place of 1.79 % declared by the assessee. Accordingly, the addition was restricted to ₹ 3,03,017/- as against addition of ₹ 2,18,71,865/- made by the AO. 13. Being aggrieved, the assessee as well as Revenue has filed an appeal against the confirmation of addition of ₹ 3,03,017/- and the Revenue has filed against the deletion of addition. The ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the labour expenses were shown as unpaid but that does not mean that these were not paid or paid in cash. Further, the issue is covered against the assessee by the order of Tribunal in the case of his sister concern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
