9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explained the transaction by furnishing details of date-wise transfer with narration and amounts are matching with bank entries and no discrepancies found in the transactions and therefore, we do not want to interfere in respect of this issue and view taken by the ld. CIT(A) is affirmed. Addition on account of realization from sundry debtors account from the order - The books of accounts were not disturbed and on the settled principle that once books of assessee are not rejected and explanation furnished is reasonable no addition can be made. The ld. CIT(A) also relied on the various decisions pronounced by the Hon ble High Court as well as Hon ble Apex Court and stand taken by the AO was deleted. We also going through the facturl matrix of the case, we do not want to interfere in the findings given by the ld. CIT(A) since one goods have been sold the buyer became the debtor and such in respect of money from him is nothing but realization of such debt. As such section 68 cannot be applied in the case of assessee and the addition made by the AO stand deleted by the ld. CIT(A) and we do not want to interfere in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in respect of this issue and grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arious judicial decisions referred to by the AO as well as the AR in support of their respective stands in the matter. I have also considered the relevant materials on record in deciding the matter on merits. Therefore, the case needs to be decided against the background of an overall availability of information/data on record as follows: The AO found that the appellant had total deposits in his bank accounts as follows: Sl. No. Name of Bank Account Number Total Deposits 1 ICICI Bank 032851000003 3,44,79,712/- 2 ICICI Bank 032805004469 2,69,83,492/- 3 Bandhan Bank 10160007384576 4,39,15,865/- Total 10,53,79,069/- Therefore, the AO was of the opinion that the difference between total deposit of Rs. 10,53,79,069/- and sales of Rs. 7,79,61,209/- being Rs. 2,74,17,850/- could be constr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pancy in the matter. In respect of ICICI Bank (032805004469)) out of the inter bank transactions of Rs. 41,21,800/- an amount of Rs. 36,06,000/- was on account of transfer of funds from Majumder Hosiery, an amount of Rs.4,85,950/- was rejection credit due to insufficient funds/exceeded arrangements, and lastly an amount of T29.850/- was payment stopped by the drawer. The details of the date wise transfer with narration and amount is seen to be matching with the bank entries and therefore there are no discrepancies as such. In respect of Bandhan Bank (10160007384576) out of the total inter-bank transactions of Rs. 66,66,728/- an amount of T32,30,726/- was on account of transfer of funds from Majumder Hosiery and remaining amount of Rs. 34,26,002/- was on account of credit due to cheque return due to insufficient funds/signature mismatch. Here also the details of the date wise transfer with narration and amount is seen to be matching with the bank entries and therefore there stands is no discrepancy. The same details were provided before the AO and clearly there was an error as to in partly accepting the submissions to the extent of Rs. 1,30,86,000/- and adding back the balance of Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8/- as unexplained deposits u/s 69A of the Act. The same stands deleted. 4.4. The second addition of Rs. 40,05,654/- on account of realization from sundry debtors account is taken up. The appellant from the books of accounts showed the sundry debtors balance as on 31.3.2016 was Rs. 55,13,058/- out of which Rs. 40,05,654/-was received during the year. The sundry debtors as on 31.3.2016 was forming part of accepted sales for AY 2016-2017 as per the audited accounts furnished in the paper book. The confirmation of the sundry debtors parties submitted before the AO were disbelieved on the reason that the same was printed in the same manner. The confirmations of accounts are supported with detailed sheet of the debtors and the audited books of accounts. No addition can be made for realization of sundry debtors forming part of the sales reflected as income in the previous year. The books of accounts were not disturbed. The decision of Mehta Parikh Co vs. CIT (supra) and Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (supra) can again be applied here on the principle that once books of the appellant are not rejected and explanation furnished is reasonable no addition can be made. The fact tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... losed any faults or defects, which cannot be reasonably and satisfactorily explained by the assessee. All the other transactions, except the cash transactions, which were verifiable, have been verified and scrutinized by the Income-tax Officer and there is nothing wrong whatsoever found with them. As to the cash transactions also, the quantity of sugar sold has not been disputed. The rates at which sugar was sold were not such as would excite suspicion by reason of being lower than the prevailing market rates. The Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd., in Tax Appeal No. 2471 of 2009, dealing with a situation where the assessee was an exporter and claimed deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. On the basis of information received by the AO considered the export of Rs. 70 lacs as bogus. The AO denied benefit u/s 80HHC of the Act and he also made addition of Rs. 70 lacs in the income u/s 68 of the Act. It was held that once the assessee has already included the amount of sale of Rs 70 lacs in the profit and loss account and determined the income on that basis no further addition could be made u/s 68 of the Act as it would tantamount to double taxation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are general in nature and remaining ground 2 and 3 are inter connected, the main grievance of the revenue is that the findings given by the ld. CIT(A) was contrary and its perverse and therefore, it may liable to be set aside. On the other hand, ld. AR submitted before us that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is a reasoned order and the ld. CIT(A) discuss all the issues in length. However, the issue in respect of upholding the action of the ld. AO to make the addition of Rs. 3,58,428/- as an unexplained deposits in the hands of the assessee is bad in law and required to be deleted. He has submitted a detailed Paper Book containing total 98 pages and he further submitted that the dispute in the instant appeal is only in respect of following issues: (i) addition under the head of Rs. 65,52,478/- on account of inter banking transaction (ii) addition under the head of Rs. 40,05,654/- against realization of sundry debtors (iii) addition under the head of Rs. 3,58,428/- on account of difference in various accounts. The AR while submitting before us in respect of issues on board and he bring to our notice that the AO while framing the assessment he noticed that the assessee had total d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ils of the date wise transfer with narration and amount is seen to be matching with the bank entries as per record and therefore there is not discrepancy in the matter as alleged. Further, in respect of ICICI Bank (032805004469) out of inter-bank transactions of Rs. 41,21,800/, an amount of Rs. 36,06,000/- was on account of transfer of funds from Majumder Hosiery, an amount of Rs. 4,85,950/- was rejection credit due to insufficient funds/exceeded amount and Rs. 29,850/- payment stopped by the drawer. The details of date wise transfer with narration and amount is seem to be matching with the bank entries and there are no discrepancies found as alleged by the AO in his order. Further in respect of Bandhan Bank (10160007384576) out of the total inter-bank transactions of Rs. 66,66,728/-, an amount of Rs. 32,30,726/- was on account of transfer of funds from Majumder Hosiery and the remaining amount of Rs. 34,26,002/- was on account of credit due to cheque return due to insufficient funds/signature. Here also the datewise details with narration and amount is seen to be matching with the bank entries and therefore there stands is no discrepancy in the accounts as alleged by the AO does n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
