TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Tribunal confirms genuine purchases, partially upholds remission addition, dismisses Revenue appeal, allows creditor addition appeal</h1> <h3>Smt. Priti Bansidhar Mehta and others Versus The ITO 25 (2) (2), BKC Mumbai and others</h3> Smt. Priti Bansidhar Mehta and others Versus The ITO 25 (2) (2), BKC Mumbai and others - TMI Issues:Cross appeals by assessee and Revenue against order of Ld. CIT(A)-35, Mumbai for assessment year 2009-10.Analysis:1. The original assessment case reached the Tribunal, which directed the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a fresh order and conduct necessary enquiry regarding the verification of purchase and its genuineness.2. The AO found purchases suspicious, involving parties with cancelled VAT numbers and non-existent entities, leading to unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C and treating sundry creditors as income u/s. 41(1) of the Act.3. Assessee submitted confirmations and vouchers for purchases, but AO doubted genuineness. Ward Inspector reported non-existence of some parties, further raising suspicions.4. Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of unexplained expenditure, noting genuine purchases and payments made through bank accounts, supported by confirmations and lack of evidence to disbelieve the explanations.5. Regarding the addition on account of remission of liability, Ld. CIT(A) partially confirmed it due to lack of confirmation for outstanding balances, allowing relief for part payments made.6. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as the explanations provided by the assessee were satisfactory, supported by documentary evidence, and the AO failed to disprove them.7. Assessee's appeal against the addition of creditors as cessation of liability u/s. 41(1) was allowed as payments were made in subsequent years, indicating no cessation of liability during the relevant assessment year.8. The Tribunal upheld Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of &8377; 90,07,915/- and directed the AO to delete the addition of &8377; 36,29,281/- for the creditors, resulting in the Revenue's appeal being dismissed and the assessee's cross-appeal being allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
