9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition u/s 41(1) of the Act on account of cessation of liability is to be sustained only to the extent of 2,54,550/- and I hold and direct accordingly. - Decided partly in favour of assessee X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. Ltd., and M/s.S.I.International Co.,. The AO made the addition on the ground that the assessee failed to produce the confirmation of the creditor. It is pertinent to note that this amount was shown as credit for the financial year 2005-06 and continued as carried forward till this year, then it would not be a case of credit entries in the books of account of the assessee during the year under consideration. Therefore, when no cash credit was entered into books of account during the year under consideration, then no addition u/s 68 of the Act can be made in respect of this amount of credit balance shown in the books of account. As regards the genuineness of the transaction is concerned, if the assessee failed to prove the existence of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant M/s Associate Impex (Proprietorship Concern of the appellant P Venkatesan) purchased glasses valued at ₹ 7,79,550 from M/s Beijia Industrial Company Ltd and in turn supplied the same to M/s Associated Safety Glasses Pvt Ltd. These glasses were found to be defective by M/s Associated Safety Glasses Pvt Ltd. As per the tripartite settlement reached between t these three parties on l0-01-2008 (a copy of settlement pasted above) the final due amount of ₹ 5,25,000 from the appellant to the supplier M/s Beijia Industrial Company Ltd was agreed to be paid by M/s Associated Safety Glasses Pvt Ltd directly to M/s Beijia Industrial Company Ltd. It was further agreed that there is no due from the appellant to M/s Beijia Industrial Comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f creditor is wrong. 3. CIT Appeal failed to appreciate the appellant's prayer that liability was discharged after tripartite agreement. 4. CIT Appeal erred to examine Hon'ble ITAT finding that credit is carried forward from earlier and is not assessable u/s68. 5. Hon'ble ITAT may kindly allow the appeal for these and such other grounds that may be taken at the time of hearing. 6. Appellant craves to add any fresh ground or delete any ground at the time of hearing. 3.2 All the grounds raised (supra) are basically raised in respect of addition of ₹ 9,17,410/- in respect of sundry creditors of ₹ 7,79,550/- pertaining to Beijia Industrial Co. Ltd., and ₹ 1,37,860/- pertaining to S.I. International Ltd., m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , M/s. Associated Safety Glass Pvt. Ltd., had paid M/s. Beijia Industrial Company Ltd., the amount of ₹ 5,25,000/- in the year under consideration as under: 1) On 1.2.2008 vide cheque No. 580837 of Karur Vysya Bank - ₹ 2,00,000/- 2) On 19.2.2008 vide cheque No. 879844 of Karur Vysya Bank - ₹ 1,00,000/- 3) On 6.3.2008 vide cheque No. 580840 of Karur Vysya Bank - ₹ 50,000/- 4) On 13.3.2008 vide cheque No. 580845 of Karur Vysya Bank - ₹ 1,00,000/- 5) On 29.3.2008 vide cheque dated 543185 of Vijaya Bank - ₹ 75,000/- Total - Rs.5,25,000/- 3.4.2 From the above details, I find that even after acknowledging the agreement dated 10.01.2008 and the recitals therein, the CIT(A) went on to uphold the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
