9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idence does not fall within the ambit of substantial question under Section 260A of the Act. The aforesaid findings of fact recorded by the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, thus, cannot be held to be perverse based on non-appreciation of material on record or based on misreading of any evidence on record which may warrant interference by this Court. No question of law, much less, substantial question of law arise in the appeal. - Decided against assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that due to mistake of the Accountant the details filed were erroneously entered and later on the correct details as per the books of account by way of reply along with the affidavit dated 20.2.2015 (Annexure A-4) of the Accountant was filed. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 17.3.2015 (Annexure A-1) framed the assessment at ₹ 34,93,670/- by making addition of ₹ 24,77,000/- on account of disallowance of expenditure under Section 40A(3) of the Act. The assessee vide letter dated 20.12.2014 (Annexure A-5) explained the nature of the running account with the sister concern to the Assessing Officer. Feeling aggrieved by the assessment order, Annexure A-1, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for brevity "the CIT(A)"]. The CIT(A) vide order dated 14.10.2016 (Annexure A-2) upheld the addition of ₹ 24,77,000/- made under Section 40A(3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. Still dissatisfied, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 27.3.2018 (Annexure A-3) affirmed the order passed by the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal by the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Spun Pipe Co. Ltd. and its effect in the cash book as well comes to be the circumstantial evidence on record of the file to prove that assessee has made an attempt to escape the liability under which it was put vide this office letter dated 01.01.2015 and 13.02.2015. Had, there been existing any truth in the contentions of the assessee that earlier account was wrongly prepared, response to this effect would have come on the next date of hearing, i.e. 01.01.2015 and nine adjournments might not have been sought for and the period of about almost two months should have not elapsed. Submission of affidavit from Sh. Kanwaljit Singh S/o Late Sh. Surinder Singh dated 20.02.2015 the alleged accountant is also found false to prove in letter and spirit that the entries of cash payments (confronted to the assessee to be in contravention of section 40A(3) of the Act) were wrongly entered. It only contends that earlier account was wrongly typed by taking the figures in summarized form and mentioning the figures in consolidated manner whereas there is no wrong in doing so. The figures are to be taken in summarized way and consolidated manner for the cash payments & transactions of single party ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se arguments of the Assessing Officer and hit the crux of the matter and to attempt a summary of Assessing Officer's arguments as below: (i) When the original and the revised copy of accounts are compared than it is observed that only the daily cash payments above ₹ 20,000/- in the original copy have been split in the revised copy to make sure that daily cash entries come below ₹ 20,000/-. All other entries other than these have not been altered as they do not affect the case of the appellant. (ii) On page Nos.3 & 14 of the order, the Assessing Officer has discussed these entries. In the account statements (original and revised), the following entry is written: Date Particulars Vch Type Vch No. Debit Credit Original 09.04.2011 Cr Cash Payment 9 30,000.00 Revised 09.04.2011 Cr Cash Payment 9 18,500.00 Revised 11.04.2011 Cr Cash Payment 10 11,500.00 It is seen from the above entry that it is not a simple case of mistake by an accountant. It is not that the accountant has simply consolidated the entries as explained by the appellant. The dates, and the voucher number have been altered. Earlier the amount of ₹ 30,000/- was shown to h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00 02.05.2011 Cash Payment 21 Rs. 50,000 02.05.2011 - Rs. 16,500 5 Rs. 88,500 03.05.2011 - Rs. 19,000 6 Rs. 1,07,500 04.05.2011 - Rs. 17,000 7 Rs. 1,24,500 05.05.2011 - Rs. 17,500 8 Rs. 1,42,000 06.05.2011 - Rs. 18,500 9 Rs. 1,60,500 07.05.2011 Cash Payment 27 Rs. 50,000 07.05.2011 - Rs. 18,500 10 Rs. 1,79,500 09.05.2011 - Rs. 16,500 11 Rs. 1,95,500 10.05.2011 - Rs. 19,500 12 Rs. 2,15,000 11.05.2011 - Rs. 16,500 13 Rs. 2,31,500 12.05.2011 - Rs. 19,500 14 Rs. 2,51,000 13.05.2011 - Rs. 19,000 15 Rs. 2,70,000 14.05.2011 - Rs. 14,500 16 Rs. 14,500 16.05.2011 Rs. 19,500 17 Rs. 34,000 17.05.2011 Rs. 16,000 18 Rs. 50,000 18.05.2011 - Rs. 18,000 19 Rs. 18,000 19.05.2011 - Rs. 17,000 20 Rs. 35,000 20.05.2011 - Rs. 15,000 21 Rs. 50,000 The entry of ₹ 2,70,000/- had to be split into 15 entries all below ₹ 20,000/- spread over a period of 15 days and last entry is on 13.05.2011 as a result the amounts which added upto 50,000/- moved to 14.05.2011 and 18.05.2011 from their earlier date of 02.05.2011 and 07.05.2011. It is also not normal for an accountant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g. 5.1. The appellant arguments do not carry weight in view of the detailed discussion of facts brought about by the Assessing Officer. The plea of the appellant is rejected and addition made on this account by the Assessing Officer is therefore upheld. Ground of appeal taken by the appellant is dismissed." 9. The Tribunal while affirming the aforesaid findings had recorded that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of the assessee cannot be accepted as no attempt had been made to demolish the conclusions drawn on facts. The plea of the assessee that there was mistake by an Accountant remained unsubstantiated and was not supported even in the explanation furnished by the assessee. 10. We refer to the decisions relied upon by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant cited decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Moti Lal Khatri 7 DTR (RAJ) 139 and under question No.3, reference has been made to decision of this Court in CIT v. Nikko Auto Ltd. 256 ITR 476. Suffice it to notice that the principles of law enunciated therein, are well recognized, however, being based on individual fact situation involved therein and in vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
