9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 760X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the appeal. The assessee filed condonation petition assigning medical reasons. The assessee submitted that he was suffering from jaundice and hypertension which caused delay in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard both the parties and convinced that there is reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal. The assessee is aged 72 years. After hearing both the sides, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. I.T.A. No.391/Viz/2018 4. The assessee is engaged in the business of cashew trading. During the assessment year 2011-12, the assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs. 3,55,220/- and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' in short) on total income of Rs. 25,01,160/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) made the following additions to the returned income: Total income returned by the assessee Rs.3,55,220 Add : Addition towards excess credit balance as discussed in para 3(i) & 3(ii) above Rs.5,07,249 Add : Addition towards unexplained credit balance as discussed in paras 4(i) & 4(ii) above Rs.4,34,129 Add : Addition towards unexplained credit balance as discussed in paras 5(i) to 5(iv) above Rs.3,93,218 Add : Addition t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 4,34,129/- as unexplained credit for the A.Y. 2011-12. 10. On appeal, before the CIT(A) also the assessee could not reconcile the balance or submit the evidence to support the outstanding balance as genuine. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Hence, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 11. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. There was an outstanding credit balance in the name of M/s Noble Cashew Industries as on 31.03.2011 in the books of the assessee. On verification of the books of accounts of the creditor, it is found that there was no balance outstanding against the assessee, which indicates that the credit balance shown in the books of the assessee is bogus. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR could not place any evidence to prove the genuineness of the outstanding either before the Ld.CIT(A) or before the Tribunal. Therefore we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. The appeal of the assessee on this ground is dismissed. 12. Ground No. 2(4), 2(5) and 2(6) are related to the additions made by the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... various reasons as mentions against the remarks of the respective creditor. Therefore, the AO made the addition u/s 68 of the Act treating the same as unexplained loans as under: Sl.No. Name of the sundry creditor Closing Balance as on 31.03.2012 Postal Remarks 1. M/s Lakshmi Traders Rs.1,55,000 Insufficient address given, hence returned 2. Tangedu Lakshmi Rs.5,55,000 Insufficient address given, hence returned 3. Kandi Suryanarayana Rs.2,68,000 No name in the village, hence returned 4. Velugula Suryanarayana Rs.3,30,000 Addressee not in address given 5. KanumuriS.Venkata Rao Rs.7,00,000 Not in village 6. A.Radha Lakshmi Prasad Rs.2,07,070 Not in village 7. Koppineedi Rama Krishna Rs.2,98,950 Such name of addressee not in village 8. Vasudira Impex Pvt. Ltd. Rs.32,42,561 Addressee left 9. Sri Tirumala Venkata Ramana Cashew Products Rs.52,500 Insufficient address given, hence returned Total Amount Rs.58,09,081 18. Against the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and produced the ledger extracts of the concerned accounts in the case of following creditors : Sl.No. Name of the creditor Amount 1. M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of account copies does not lead to addition, it is incumbent upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of the outstanding creditors. Since the assessee failed to furnish any primary evidence with regard to the identity, genuineness and the existence of the said creditor, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeals of the revenue as well as of the assessee on this issue are dismissed. 21. Ground No.5 and 6 are related to the addition of Rs. 13,36,703/- representing un-reconciled balances in the accounts of four sundry creditors. During the assessment proceedings, the AO conducted enquiries with regard to the genuineness of the outstanding creditors by issue of notice u/s 133(6). On verification of the information received from the creditors, the AO found the differences in the books of accounts of the sundry creditors aggregating to Rs. 13,36,703/- as follows: S.No. Name of the Creditor Balance as per assessee's books as on 31.03.2012 Balance as per Sr.creditors books as on 31.03.2012 Difference 1. ACME Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Rs.19,50,363 Rs.11,33,469 Rs.8,16,494 2. Bright Star Global Trading Corporation Rs.22,829 Nil Rs.22,829 3. Noble Cashew ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the order of the CIT(A), the revenue filed appeal before this Tribunal. In Ground No.6, the revenue raised objection for not giving opportunity to the AO as per Rule 46A of I.T. Rules. 24. It is settled issue that the proceedings of the Ld.CIT(A) is extension of assessment proceedings and CIT(A) is permitted to make independent verification even without referring the matter to the AO. These powers are vested with the CIT(A) in section 250(4) of the I.T.Act which reads as under : (4) The Commissioner (Appeals) may, before disposing of any appeal, make such further inquiry as he thinks fit, or may direct the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to the Commissioner (Appeals). The CIT(A) is empowered to make enquiries independently for disposal of the appeal as provided in the Act and this view is upheld by the coordinate bench of ITAT, Kolkata in Deputy Commissioner of Income tax- (1)(1), Kolkata v. Lexicon Auto Ltd.92 taxmann.com 84. Therefore, we are of the considered view that once the CIT(A), after verification has satisfied the genuineness of the transaction, she is permitted to decide the appeal without referring the issue to the L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule of the Trade Creditors, the assessee has shown a credit balance of Rs. 10,38,555 in the name of Sri Adabala Rambabu as on 31.03.2013 and shown a credit balance of Rs. 73,84,250 (Rs.12,57,795 + Rs. 61,26,465) in the name of Rajkumar Impex Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. But as per the account copies obtained form the said creditors, there are certain differences were found in the above cases. Name of the Sr.Creditor Closing Balance as per assessee's books Closing balance as per sundry creditor's books account copy Difference AdabalaRambabu Rs.10,38,555 Rs.10,58,555 - Rajkumar Impex Pvt. Ltd. Chennai Rs.73,84,250 Rs.1,05,75,616 Rs.31,91,666 7. Vide this office letters dated 11-03-2016 and 16-03-2016, the assessee was asked to reconcile the above difference of Rs. 20,000/-- and Rs. 31,91,777/- respectively. In response to this, the assessee submitted reconciliation statement in the case of MIs. Rajkumar Impex Pvt. Ltd.. As seen from the above statement, the assessee has reconciled to the extent of RsS,5955/- and he could not reconcile balance amount for Rs. 32,211 and also stated that he has no objection for making addition of Rs. 32,211/- for the AV 2013-14". Against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
