9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent assessee and therefore, addition made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act was rightly deleted. Addition on account of non-genuine purchases - Tribunal arrived at a finding of fact on the basis of the Special Audit Report, wherein it is pointed out that the respondent assessee had shown purchase of Cotton Wash Oil (CWO) more than the sales shown - HELD THAT:- Tribunal, considering reconciliation provided by the assessee with regard to purchase of 10,180 Metric Ton of CWO for Rs. 59.70 Crores on delivery basis came to the conclusion that purchase of 10,180 Metric Tons of CWO for Rs. 59.70 Crores cannot be said to be excessive as it is established by the assessee on the basis of the supporting evidence that such purchase was duly recorded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 108.97 Crores made by the AO u/s. 68 of the Act? (B) Whether on the facts circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 59,69,58,528/- made on account of non-genuine purchase? (C) Whether on the facts circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,04,170/- made on account of cash credit? (D) Whether on the facts circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,17,346/- made by the AO u/s. 361 (1) (iii) of the Act? [3] The respondent assessee company is engaged in the business of trading of edible oil / non-edible oil and is also act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent assessee received it on account of transaction of sales made on NSEL. The assesse company accounted the sales of Rs. 108.97 Crores in its books of account as income and therefore, the Assessing Officer could not have treated the same as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act as it would amount to double addition of the same amount which is not permissible. [9] It is also not in dispute that the amount in question was received by the assessee from NSEL s client through its broker M/s. N. K. Proteins Limited and the same was directly received by cheque in HDFC bank account. [10] The Tribunal has, therefore, arrived at a finding of fact that the amount in question received by the respondent assessee against sale thro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 133 of the Act wherein it is stated that the transaction on NSEL s platform were only financial in nature and are not in the nature of actual sales and purchase transaction. It was, therefore, contended by learned advocate Mr. Sanghani that there was no actual sale and purchase transaction which is ignored by the Tribunal. [13] It was also pointed out by learned advocate Mr. Sanghani that the Assessing Officer has clearly established that the receipt of Rs. 108.97 Crores is credited in the ledger account of IBMA and the same was not in sale receipt of NSEL platform, but it was in the nature of unexplained cash credit and liable to be taxed under Section 68 of the Act. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer has given cogent reason t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of CWO is reconciled and there is no difference. The Tribunal observed that the transaction of 10,180 Metric Ton of CWO for Rs. 59.70 Crores was through actual delivery of goods and it was not a part of trading cycle effected by the respondent assessee through NSEL for raising finance. It was further found that M/s. N. K. Proteins Limited was having one unit at Shree Rajkot Lodhika Sahkari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd who had sold 10,180 Metric Ton of CWO to the respondent assessee on actual delivery basis against which sale was duly recorded and recognized in the books of M/s. N. K. Proteins Limited as verified by the Assessing Officer and corresponding sale of 10,180 Metric Ton of CWO made by the respondent assessee from the purchase from M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... represented sale proceeds realized by the respondent assessee. The Tribunal, therefore, has rightly deleted the said addition. [19] So far as question No. 4 is concerned arising out of the addition of Rs. 3,17,346/- which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of interest expenses, the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that as per the balance-sheet of the respondent assessee, there was a capital and reserved to the extent of Rs. 420 Crores with the assessee company at the relevant time which was sufficient to give interest through advances in question. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly deleted the disallowance of Rs. 3,17,346/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of interest expenses. [20] C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
