2016 (6) TMI 115 - HC - Income Tax

Appeal dismissed as Section 68 doesn't apply. Judgment favors assessee.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that Section 68 did not apply in this case. The judgment supported the ITAT's finding of factual evidence on ... Addition u/s 68 - whether the receipt has satisfactorily been established to be on account of advance payment? - Held that:- As held by ITAT the advance money, in the present case before us, is adjusted the sale price of the motor cycle and sale is disclosed in the return of income i.e. the trading account of the assessee. Accordingly, we find no ambiguity in the system followed by the assessee. The aforesaid finding was recorded by the learned Tribunal on the basis of evidence disclosed before them which is also found in the paper book filed before us by Mr. Khaitan. It cannot, therefore, be said that the view taken by the Tribunal is perverse. The question essentially is a question of fact and the learned Tribunal on the basis of evidence was satisfied that the money had in fact been received by way of advance and therefore, no question of any bogus liability being created was there as held by the Assessing Officer. Section 68 in the facts of the case had no applicability. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Appeal against ITAT judgment on applicability of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act for advance received from buyers of motor cycles.Analysis:The appeal challenged the ITAT judgment regarding the addition of nearly Rs. 4 crores credited to the assessee's accounts as advance from motor cycle buyers. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) contended it was a bogus liability due to cash payments, but the ITAT found the assessee followed a consistent accounting system accepted by the department. The ITAT noted the advance deposits were adjusted against sale prices, and the absence of PANs was not crucial for sale transactions under the Sale of Goods Act. The ITAT concluded the AO and CIT(A) erred, deleting the addition and allowing the assessee's appeal.The respondent's senior advocate argued that all necessary particulars were provided to the authorities and that obtaining PAN details for advance payments was not legally mandated. The advocate for the revenue pointed out a director's deposition regarding customer records but the ITAT found the system of advance payments and sales disclosure clear from the evidence. The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, emphasizing the factual satisfaction of advance receipt and rejecting the Assessing Officer's view of a bogus liability.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that Section 68 did not apply in this case. The judgment supported the ITAT's finding of factual evidence on advance receipts and rejected the notion of a bogus liability. The parties were directed to bear their own costs, and the appeal was resolved in favor of the assessee.