9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 2270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the entire transaction. The assessee failed to clarify the discrepancies pointed out by the Assessing Officer and failed to produce creditor before him, even failed to prove the creditworthiness. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the onus casted upon the assessee has not been discharged. Therefore, the authorities below have rightly made the addition. Thus, this ground of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed. Unsecured loan in respect of M. Srinivasa Rao on appeal before us except stating what was stated before the ld. CIT(A), no material was brought to our notice that the transaction is genuine. By considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the assessee failed to discharge the burden casted upon him to prove the genuineness of the transaction and also creditworthiness of the creditor. Therefore, the authorities below rightly considered the issue and addition is made. We find no infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A). Thus, this ground of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed. Cash credit in the capital account and the assessee offered the same for taxation - Before us, ld. counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The only issue involved in this appeal is estimation of profit in respect of IMFL business carried by the assessee. In this respect, the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tangudu Jogisetty (supra) has considered the profit level in the line of business and decided that 5% of purchase price is reasonable profit margin in the line of IMFL business and directed the A.O. to re-compute the profit of the assessee. The relevant portion of the order is extracted as under: 8. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The A.O. estimated net profit of 20% on stock put for sale. The A.O. was of the opinion that the assessee has not maintained proper books of accounts and vouchers in support of purchases and sales. The A.O. further observed that the assessee has failed to maintain stock registers and books of accounts maintained by the assessee are not susceptible for verification, therefore rejected the books of accounts and estimated net profit of 20% by relying upon the decision of Hon ble A.P. High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18.05.2012 as well as a number of other cases have held that profit in case of business in Indian made foreign liquor has to be estimated at 5% of the purchases made by the assessee. Therefore, following the decision of the ITAT Hyderabad bench, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the assessing officer to estimate the profit from the wine business of the assessee by applying the rate of 5% of the purchases made net of all other deductions. The assessing officer should also bear in mind that in no case the income determined should be below the income returned. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also respectfully following the ratios of coordinate bench, we are of the view that the net profit estimated by the A.O. by relying upon the decision of Hon ble A.P. High Court (supra), which was rendered under different facts is quite high. On the other hand, the assessee relied upon the decision of coordinate bench and the coordinate bench under similar circumstances estimated the net profit of 5% on total purchases net of all deductions. No contrary decision is placed on record by the revenue to take any other view of the matter than the view so ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per the verification with Indian Bank, it is seen that DD No. 986188 was purchased by one N. Srinivasa Choudhary for Rs. 10,000/- on 02/06/2010. Thus, there are discrepancies as to the date, DD Number and purchaser of the DD. The AR referred to copy of bank statement of Majji Govinda Rao wherein there was a debit of Rs. 4,60,695/- on 02/06/2010; and the break-up of this amount was recorded beneath as per which the EMD DD No. 986185 was taken for Rs.4,50,000/-; non refund deposit for Rs. 10,000/- and DD commission for Rs. 695/-. With reference to these notings in the bank statement, the AR contended that DD for Rs. 4,50,000/- was taken and that the transaction was genuine, but could not file any confirmation or clarification from the alleged creditor and the discrepancies pointed out by the Assessing Officer has not been clarified. Besides, no evidence was adduced to prove the creditworthiness of the said creditor, as the said debit was proceeded by cash credit of Rs. 4.5 lakhs. Accordingly, the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 15. On appeal before us, ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the transaction is genuine and therefore, the addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as to identify of the creditor could not be clarified with any supportive evidence. Even assuming that the credit transaction was from Meka Srinivas, the perusal of the ledger extract of Meka Srinivas filed as additional evidence indicate that an amount of Rs. 11,05,000/- was advanced to the account of the assessee on 03/06/2010 and there was repayment of Rs. 7,30,000/-; as against the averment in the confirmation letter that Rs. 8,75,000/- was advanced of which Rs. 5.00 lakh was repaid. No evidence was adduced to clarify this. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer by observing that the assessee failed to discharge his onus casted upon him. 19. On appeal before us except stating what was stated before the ld. CIT(A), no material was brought to our notice that the transaction is genuine. By considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the assessee failed to discharge the burden casted upon him to prove the genuineness of the transaction and also creditworthiness of the creditor. Therefore, the authorities below rightly considered the issue and addition is made. We find no infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
