9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee. - ITA No.338 of 2019 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 30-3-2022 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate for the appellant. PANKAJ JAIN, J. Assessee is in appeal challenging the order dated 31st of October, 2018, passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (SMC) in ITA No.756/ASR/2017 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. Assessee's appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) whereby addition of Rs.4,60,581/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') was upheld, has been dismissed. 3. Assessee filed return decla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish confirmed copies of account of sundry creditors namely (i) M/s Bansal Iron Traders, Tanda Road Jalandhar (ii) Sanjeev Tweezers Amit, 143 Basti Sheikh Near Post Office Jalandhar (iii) M/s Satish Surgical Works (Soniya) Basti Seikh. Information u/s 133(6) was also called from these parties. The letters addressed to M/s Satish Surgical Works and Sanjeev Tweezers were received back undelivered with the postal remarks 'no such' person at this address. No reply was received from M/s Bansal Iron Traders, Jalandhar. As per the copies of account furnished by the assessee, there were following closing balances in the account of these parties : (i) Sanje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a true and fair view of its affairs, i.e., generally. Speaking in the context of the impugned liabilities, the facts and circumstances stand examined to find the assessee's claim of being liable qua the impugned sums being wholly unproved, if not disproved (refer paras 3.3 3.4 of this order). It is the substance of the transaction that is relevant. The same, apart from representing settled law, stands also explained in Motilal Ambaidas v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 136 (Guj) in the context of a sec. 41(1) addition, wherein no entries in respect of sale-tax collected (from customers) and paid to the Government were made by the assessee in his books of account, contending that therefore no deduction qua sales-tax paid had been claimed by him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he record of the case. 9. It goes uncontroverted that the appellant has not been able to lead any evidence to prove the existence of liability. The creditors could not verify the liability of the appellant as projected by him. The existence of liability is purely a matter of fact. Proposition of law is well settled that where a party is expected to be in possession of evidence but fails to produce the same, an adverse inference has to be drawn. Reference can be made to the law laid down in case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras vs. R. Venkata Swamy Naidu (1956) 29 ITR 529 (SC), wherein Apex Court held that - 10. The assessee was solely responsible for the paucity of these materials inasmuch as it did not furnish any material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
