9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtial relief to the assessee in terms of charging section, but amount of addition is confirmed. In the result, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is partly allowed. Unsecured loans - Assessee submitted before us the ITR carrying details like name of the party, PAN No., Aadhaar No. and Bank a/c details, etc - HELD THAT:- As observed that all the above parties declared ample figures of income and have sufficient funds in their balance sheets furnished alongwith return which confirms the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the parties concerned. Assessee looks to be fair in his treatment of various accounting entries may be the trade creditors or otherwise. While adjudicating ground no.1 wherein assessee suo moto declared an amount as trade liability no longer exists and the same is chargeable to tax u/s. 41(1) of the Act. Documents pertaining to the above mentioned unsecured loan were submitted before us and there was no challenge on the same by the other side. Based on above, we found that addition is not justified and the overall behaviour of the assessee and documents produced before us confirms the ingredients of section 68 of the Act, hence ground no. 2 raised by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act 3.1 on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred in confirming the interest levied under section 234A and 234B of the Act. 3.2 The Appellant prays that the levy of interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act may kindly be deleted. I reserve my right to add, amend alter anything as stated here in above or may be stated here in after and all the grounds are alterative and independent to each other. 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds:- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in law in deleting the addition u/s. 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 5, 39, 61,241/- on account of unexplained expenditure for the reason that the assessee failed to prove genuineness of the transaction during the assessment proceeding. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 97, 13,024/- on account of claim of GST on unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the reason that the assessee failed to prove genuineness of the transaction during the assessment pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion u/s. 68 of the Act on account of increase in proprietor s capital account amounting to Rs. 1,50,12,664/-. It is observed that the assessee had shown capital as on 31.03.2019 at Rs. 3,01,98,397/-, in addition to this, the profit for the year under consideration was at Rs. 1,08,12,818/-. But the closing balance of the capital account as on 31.03.2020 was at Rs. 5,06,41,893/- (after considering the withdrawals of Rs. 53,80,385/-). In nutshell, there was a gap of Rs. 1, 50, 12,664/- which the assessee was asked to explain keeping in view the provisions of section 68 of the Act. As per the AO despite of giving proper opportunity, the assessee was not able to explain the same, hence added back. Similar view was taken by the Ld. CIT (A) also. It is submitted by the assessee that during the year the account of following parties (credit balance) has been written off as the same are not payable by the assessee. The details of the parties alongwith amount in tabular form is as under:- Sr. No. Name of Party Amount in Rs. 1. Balaji Enterprises 96,67,033/- 2. Metal Vision Industries 45,27,270/- 3. Kachchh Metal Hub 7,62,280/- 4. Other Small Creditors 56,081/- Total 1,50,12,664/- 6. It is sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00,500/- 4. Mohd Shoaib Rs. 1, 80,000/- 5. Mukhtar Ahmed Rs. 20, 44,147/- 6. Sattar Enterprises Rs. 2, 00,000/- 7. Time T Engg Rs. 1, 05,545/- (iv) In this regard, the assessee was asked vide notice u/s. 142(1) dated 20.01.2022 and 02.02.2022 to provide copy of accounts, bank account statements and copy of ITRs/Audit Reports along with annexure from the persons from whom assessee have raised loans along with copy of their PAN, complete address and e-mail Id. Meanwhile, notice u/s 133(6) of the Act was issued to the above mentioned parties. However, the assessee has not furnished relevant documents as sought for, Therefore; a show cause notice was issued to the assessee. In response to show cause notice, the assessee has furnished desired documents such as ledger confirmation, PAN Copy, Bank Account Statement in the case of Kohinoor Enterprises, Mohd Shoaib, and Sattar Enterprises only. Further, confirmation along with relevant documents has also been received from these parties on ITBA Portal. The same was perused and verified. In this regard no adverse inference has been drawn. It has been noticed further that Sh. Mohd Shoaib is a proprietor of MH Textile . Sh. Mohd Shoaib has sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll are interlinked, hence adjudicated together. For sake of clarity on the facts, we are reproducing herein below the observations and findings of the AO as under:- The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 8, 69, 68,909/- on the ground that the Appellant has made bogus purchases from Smt. Vimala Devi Prop. Of M/s. Shubham Steelage (PAN NO.- BIZPV9455N) i.e. purchases of Rs. 5,39,61,241/- and GST on Purchases Rs. 97,13,024/- totalling to Rs. 6,36,74,265/- and added it to the Appellants Net income of Rs. 1,04,57,840/- as per IT return filed and Assessed the Appellant s total income. The Appellant claimed that he has made genuine purchases from Smt. Vimala Devi Prop. Of M/s. Shubham Steelage and also the expenses and liabilities claimed by the Appellant are true and correct as per his records. Whereas the Assessing Officer has shown the additional income of Rs. 6, 36, 74,265/- (Purchases - Rs. 5, 39, 61,241/- and GST on Purchases Rs. 97, 13,024/-) by disallowing the purchases made with Smt. Vimala Devi, Prop. Of M/s. Shubham Steelage (PAN No.BIZPV9455N) describing as bogus purchases and added it to the income of the appellant. The Assessing Officer has mentioned in the Assessment Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es amounting to Rs. 97,13,024/- made from Shubham Steelage. The appellant did not clarify the discrepancies found by the AO during the assessment proceedings. During the appeal proceedings, the appellant has submitted invoice copies, delivery challan, transport bill, ledger confirmations from shubham steelage, bank statements evidencing payment received from shubham steelage, GST Returns filed by Shubham Steelage and corresponding receipts of the taxes paid. Further, the appellant has also submitted its GSTR 2A to show that it has received GST Input Tax credit w.r.t purchases made from Shubham Steelage. Considering the same, Disallowance of purchases amounting to Rs. 5,39,61,241/- and GST on purchases amounting to Rs. 97,13,024/- is deleted. The ground taken by assessee is allowed. 14. On this issue although the revenue is in appeal, but the Ld. DR appeared for the department was not able to substantiate the findings of the AO and also not able to controvert the findings of Ld. CIT (A). We have gone through the submissions of the assessee alongwith the orders of the authorities below and found that although the name of the party was there amongst the high risk billers, but there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
