TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court upholds CIT & ITAT decisions, partially allows Assessing Officer's additions, emphasizing factual nature.</h1> The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the CIT (Appeals) and ITAT decisions. The Assessing Officer's additions were partially allowed and deleted ... - Issues involved: Assessment order additions - GP ratio discrepancy, unexplained credit entries in bank account, sundry creditors amount discrepancy.In the present case, the Assessing Officer made three additions in the assessment order: Firstly, a discrepancy in the GP ratio where the addition was made based on a higher ratio compared to what was provided by the assessee. Secondly, an addition against unexplained credit entries in the bank account. Thirdly, an addition on account of sundry creditors wrongly shown. The CIT (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal, reducing the first addition significantly after accepting the explanation regarding the difference in GP ratio due to the nature of sales. The CIT (Appeals) also deleted the addition for unexplained credit entries, noting that it had been assessed for another assessee. The ITAT upheld these findings as factual, with no legal question arising.Regarding the unexplained credit entries, the CIT (Appeals) decision to delete the addition was based on the fact that the Assessing Officer could not establish that the money did not belong to the present assessee. The ITAT concurred with this view, emphasizing that no addition could be made without proper evidence. The ITAT observed that the Assessing Officer failed to refute the claim that the money did not belong to the present assessee, leading to the deletion of this addition.On the issue of the sundry creditors amount, the ITAT upheld the CIT (Appeals) findings that the liabilities were acknowledged in the books and pertained to the amount payable by the erstwhile firm, now taken over by the assessee. As long as there was no cessation of liability, the ITAT ruled that no addition could be made under section 41(1), emphasizing the factual nature of this determination.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that all the findings were factual in nature with no legal questions arising. The appellant was directed to pay costs, highlighting the dismissal of the appeal based on the factual nature of the issues involved.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
