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 upholds unexplained cash credit & hawala purchases in textile company case</h1> <h3>M/s Ahan Apparel Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT-9 (1) (1) Mumbai</h3> M/s Ahan Apparel Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT-9 (1) (1) Mumbai - TMI Issues:1. Addition of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.2. Addition of hawala purchases.3. Failure to provide necessary details and explanations before the authorities.Issue 1: Addition of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act:The assessee company, engaged in textile manufacturing and trading, issued shares at a premium and forfeited shares due to non-payment of balance consideration. The Assessing Officer, after issuing summons to subscriber companies, noted non-compliance and lack of details on forfeited amounts. Consequently, the AO treated the transactions as sham, adding the amount received from two subscribers as unexplained cash credit under section 68. The CIT(A) upheld this, stating the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of transactions and forfeited shares without adequate explanation. The Tribunal concurred, emphasizing the lack of conclusive evidence and upheld the addition.Issue 2: Addition of hawala purchases:The Assessing Officer observed alleged bogus purchases from specific companies listed as hawala/suspicious dealers by the Sales Tax Department. Despite the assessee providing some evidence, the AO estimated a 12.5% profit on these purchases, adding it to the total income. The CIT(A) supported this decision, citing the failure to prove the purchases' genuineness. The Tribunal, aligning with the AO's and CIT(A)'s findings, upheld the addition, referencing the Gujarat High Court's directive to tax the profit element embedded in alleged bogus purchases.Issue 3: Failure to provide necessary details and explanations before the authorities:Throughout the proceedings, the assessee reiterated submissions but failed to adequately prove the genuineness of transactions and the legitimacy of forfeited shares. Despite opportunities to present evidence, the assessee did not provide conclusive details to counter the authorities' findings. This lack of substantiation led to the rejection of the grounds taken by the assessee and the dismissal of the appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the additions of unexplained cash credit and hawala purchases due to the assessee's failure to provide sufficient evidence and explanations, as required under the Income Tax Act.
TaxTMI 