9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of net profit taking into account past net profit history of the assessee. Addition as income from other sources - Stamp value in excess of consideration price - gift of flat to a grandson - Addition made against the clubbing of income u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) read with Section 64(1A) of the Act - HELD THAT:- We note that the gift of flat to a grandson (Umang Dugar) does not come within the clutches of sec. 56(2)(viib) since grandfather and grandson are relative, (being lineal descendant ascendant) as clearly defined in the particular section itself. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). That being so, we decline to interfere in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), his order on this issue, is hereby upheld and the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed. - ITA No.2255/Kol/2018 (Assessment Year:2014-15) - - - Dated:- 5-2-2020 - SHRI S.S. GODARA, JM AND DR. A.L. SAINI, AM Appellant by: Shri Baij Nath Singh, JCIT Respondent by: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA ORDER Dr. A.L. Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the Revenue, pertaining to assessment year 2014-15, is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... himself brought three persons as sundry creditors and deposition of them was recorded u/s. 131 of the Act. While recording deposition following discrepancies were noticed by assessing officer: Sl. No. Name of the person/creaditor Address Sale Balance as on 31-03-2014 1 Shibaprasad Maji Dakshinpara, Dhobaghata Harish Nagar Hooghly - 712409 ₹ 4,86,000/- (approx) NIL Name of the person/creditor as per the assessee Address as per the assessee Purchase as per the assessee Balance as on 31-03-2014 as per assessee Shibu Majhi C/o. Avijit Das; VIII.-Ukil, PO-Polba Hooghly- 712409 688250 148250 Sl. No. Name of the person/creaditors Address Sale Balance as on 31-03-2014 2 Ashish Kr. Ghosh VIII PO Khamarchandi P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tters and summons returned un-served with postal remarks either insufficient address or no trace or 'wrong address' or not known'. The matter was brought to the notice of the Authorized Representative over telephone and asked to produce the sundry creditors before the undersigned to establish identity and creditworthiness of the creditors. In response thereto, you could produce only three (3) sundry creditors and statement of the three creditors was recorded u/s. 131. While recording their statements, it was found that names and addresses of the above three creditors are not fully matched with your list of sundry creditors. Even purchases shown in respect of the above three creditors are not matched with their statement. Lastly, all the three creditors stated on oath that there was no outstanding balance due to you as on 31-03-2014. The above facts were also brought to your notice vide this office letter dt.23/09/2016. Onus to prove the authenticity of any claim lies on you which you could not discharge till date. Even, you could not furnish any confirmation from the creditors. Hence, without establishing identity and creditworthiness of creditors, genuinenes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt had produced entire documents relating to purchase and sales, stock etc before the AO. A/R also stated that entire stock register which is also part of paper book was before the AO from examination of such stock register. It can be seen that there is complete tally of opening stock, purchases and sales etc. No discrepancy has been pointed out by AO. It was stated that the AO himself has stated that in para 3(f) that the assessee obviously purchased goods (jute) otherwise sale could not happen . Therefore, the AO cannot accept the sales made out of alleged bogus purchases / creditors treat the genuine purchases as bogus purchases. In any event, it was submitted that only the net profit thereon could be brought to tax. In support of his proposition the A/R placed reliance to various decisions including the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fabric Pvt. Ltd. reported in 355 ITR 290 wherein it was held that even if it is presumed that the purchase was made from bogus parties, the purchase themselves cannot be treated as bogus as quantitative tally of goods purchased and sold are available and therefore, the addition should not be the entire amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 11,38,38,599 Net profit/Turnover 0.011% 0.37% 0.35% I find that although the net profit rate is almost comparable with last years net profit, but since the admitted position is that certain discrepancies were detected in course of scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) therefore a larger disallowances is attracted. Considering the extent of incorrectness, I am of the opinion that net profit rate of 1.00% is appropriate in this case. The figure of 1.00% of turnover of ₹ 11,38,38,599/- works out to ₹ 11,38,386/- which in my view is sufficient to absorb all the inaccuracies in the improper and doubtful accounts. Accordingly, the AO is directed to assess the net profit at ₹ 11,38,386/- and the rest of the addition of ₹ 2,13,41,589/- (2,24,79,975 - 11,38,386/-) is deleted. This is ground is partly allowed. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us. 9. The ld. DR has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer which we have already noted in our earlier para and the same is not being repeat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 64(1A) of the Act. 12. Brief facts qua the issue are that during the scrutiny assessment, the AO noticed that stamp value (market value) of the property (Flat measuring 1453 Sq. ft. on the fifth floor under Dag No.3782, Khatian No.1229, JL No.27, PO Mouza - Rishra, Hooghly) was ₹ 26,15,436/- and consideration paid by Sri Ratanlal Dugar was to the tune of ₹ 17,00,000/-. Therefore, AO made addition(stamp value in excess of consideration price) of ₹ 9,15,436/(₹ 26,15,436 - ₹ 17,00,000), under the head income from other sources under the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the I.T. Act in the hands of Sri Umang Dugar (Minor son of the assessee) and that too would not be clubbed with the income of the assessee under the provisions of section 64 (1A) of the Act. 13. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer observing the following: Ground no. 3 is directed against clubbing of income of minor child under the head other sources amounting to ₹ 9,15,436/- under the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Ld. AO noticed that an immovable property was purchased by assessee's father in the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
