9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 824X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the order dated 29.04.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, New Delhi arising out of the order dated 29.03.2016 passed by the ITO, Ward-13(4), New Delhi u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). for the assessment years 2013-14. 2. Deletion of addition of ₹ 21,66,30,814/- made u/s. 68 of the Act has been challenged before us by the Revenue. Such addition has been made into following two parts: i. Addition of ₹ 13,82,40,814/- u/s. 68 on account of difference in amount realized from trade debtors as against amount outstanding. ii. Addition of ₹ 7,83,90,000/- u/s. 68 on account of difference in amount realized from trade debtors as against amount outstanding. 3. The brief facts leading to the case in this remains that the assessee made trade advances to various parties in the current year as well as in the earlier year as per business requirements. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was found from the balance sheet that the opening balance outstanding against trade debtors was of ₹ 93,507,574/- whereas the amount realized from the debtors of ₹ 2,31,748,388 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not a loan received during the year but regular business transactions and money received from trade debtors. It is also submitted that AO has not taken into consideration the different amounts advanced during the year to the tune of ₹ 9,98,93,689/-, It is further stated that in the case of M/s. Kwality Ltd., the appellant has received ₹ 17,31,90,000/- by cheque at the fag end of the last financial year, however the cheque was not realized though the entries have been made in the books for repayment. Subsequently the same was written back due to the reason that the cheque was not realized. This payment has been duly received during the year under consideration. By no such stretch of imagination it can be said that appellant has received this amount twice and this amount is unexplained. 5.4 It is further stated that the amount has been realized through banking channels, books of accounts are duly audited and balance sheet has been realized, confirmation from the different parties have been received, verifying the transactions shown by the appellant and these transactions are carried out in the regular course of business through trade debtors 5.5 It has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 68 is not found applicable over such trade debtors. Therefore, the addition made amounting to ₹ 13,82,40,814/- is directed to be deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed. 6. It appears that the details of bank accounts of the earlier year were submitted by the assessee evidencing the cheques as received from the debtors i.e. M/s. Kwality Dairy India Ltd. since not encashed during the previous year i.e. the financial year 2011-12 and it is the same entry which has been reversed back in the current year. A copy of the accounts of the M/s. Kwality Dairy India Ltd. for the year under reference duly confirmed by the other parties specified that an entry of ₹ 17,31,90,000/- have been reversed by the assessee on account of cheque issued but not encashed in the earlier year; the copy of balance sheet of both the years showing no additional amount has been received and there is no difference in the balance sheet upon considering which the ld. CIT(A) deleted such addition which according to us is without any infirmity so as to warrant interference. Hence the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is confirmed. 6. Regarding the deletion of addition of ₹ 7,83,90,000/- u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or M/s. Dewana Dairy to whom sales were made in earlier years and has running account with the appellant company since past years. It is also provided in a tabular form that there was an opening balance of ₹ 22,67,983/- and ₹ 4,54,25,400/- was written back on account of cheque received in earlier year, but not encashed. The appellant has also advanced an amount of ₹ 3,31,90,000/- given to them and an amount of ₹ 7,83,90,000/- has been realized/received during the year, leaving a balance of ₹ 4,93,383/-. For the amount written back of ₹ 4,54,25,400/- the appellant has provided the same arguments as for M/s. Kwality Ltd. mentioning that AO has ignored the amount advanced to the said party of ₹ 3,31,90,000/- and also stated that the cheque received at the close of the year and could not be encashed thus the entry was reversed in the current financial year. 6.3 It is observed that M/s. Dewana Dairy is a regular trade debtor from whom the transactions are being carried out in past years. Further, AO has not considered the amount given during the year under consideration, which is borne out of record and to be considered being duly confirmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
