9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals) has erred in enhancing the initial addition of Rs. 16,35,549/- to Rs. 1,63,55,491/-. Observations made, inferences drawn and findings recorded for so doing are against the facts, arbitrary, illegal and at any rate highly excessive." 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in business of processing and trading of buffalo meat. It filed its return of income on 29.09.2011 declaring nil income after set off of brought forward losses. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee in its balance sheet has shown sundry creditors at Rs. 2,18,28,275/-. On the basis of the details of sundry creditors along with name, addresses and balance outstanding filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 133(6) to the suppliers who replied to the said notice. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, asked the assessee to produce the creditors where the credit amount is more than Rs. 10 lacs. The Assessing Officer recorded the statements of such suppliers. He observed that at the time of statement, nobody submitted the account and they have not produced any type of proof in this regard. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Officer. So far as the amount of Rs. 16,35,549/- is concerned, the ld.CIT(A), instead of deleting the same, issued an enhancement notice to the assessee and enhanced the same to Rs. 1,63,55,491/-, thereby making an enhancement of Rs. 1,47,19,942/-. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have considered the arguments advanced by the ld. DR and perused the orders of the A.O. and CIT(A). We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) so far as the addition of Rs. 9,91,425/- is concerned. It is an admitted fact that the suppliers Mohd Nasim Qureshi who had supplied the raw meat in the F.Y. 2009-10 has submitted that 'I do not now the above farm or related persons of above farm before or after 01.04.2009.' Nothing has been brought on record that the assessee has purchased the raw material from the said person. The assessee has merely stated before the Assessing Officer that the amount of Rs. 9,91,425/- was the opening balance and the total payments had been made less than Rs. 20,000/- in a day. Mere statement by the assessee that it has dispute with this person cannot be sufficient to delete the addition. Since th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement of few suppliers also states that the payments were not exceeding Rs. 20,000/-. Thus, only on the basis of entries in his books of a/c's and the statement of few suppliers, the assessee claims that each payment is not exceeding Rs, 20,000/-, hence, not hit by the provisions of Sec. 40 A (3). The Appellant in its letter dated 12.02.2016. has offered to produce the remaining suppliers. However, this would not serve any purpose for the following reasons. As a matter of fact, when I examine the statement of few suppliers, I find that for instance, in the statement of Wasim recorded on 06.03.2014, in answer to Q. No. 11 he has stated that he received payments from time to time ranging between Rs. 8,000 - Rs. 20,000/-. In statement of Miraj recorded on 07.03.2014, in answer to Q. No. 10, he stated that he received the payments ranging between Rs. 5,250 - Rs. 20,000/-. Similarly, in statement of Sh. Kalim recorded on 07.03.2014, in answer to Q. No. 10, he stated that he received the payments ranging between Rs. 5,500 - Rs. 20,000/-, so on and so forth. The nature tone and tenor of transactions with suppliers has a clear pattern as explained below. During Asstt., copy of led ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers having such a small business will work on such a huge outstanding payments against their supplies. Not only this, as it comes out from the ledger a/c's, they will accept small payments for Rs. 20,000/- each which they will collect daily from the assessee and not only this, the outstanding payment would had been made by the assessee to these suppliers after a long gap i.e., if quoted from above instances, in the case of Akram Khan it has been started from 20.02.2011, in the case of Mohd. Islam it has been started from 01.08.2010 & in the case of Mehboob Illahi Quareshi it has been started from 01.11.2010. It is also important to remember that the assessee could not produce any documentary evidence what so ever despite repeated opportunities to show that the payments have been made as they are appearing in the books of a/c's of the Assessee. The books of a/c's maintained by the assessee are without any supporting document of any sort that could vouch the correctness of dates and the amounts of payment to suppliers as shown in the books. Given these state of affairs these details as laid out in the Books cannot be accepted as true and correct. It is a case where the circumstance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
