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 decision: Revenue's appeal partly allowed, deletions upheld, expenses modified, additional evidence admitted.</h1> <h3>Income Tax Officer-2, Ratlam Versus Shri Pravin Kumar Jain</h3> Income Tax Officer-2, Ratlam Versus Shri Pravin Kumar Jain - TMI Issues Involved:1. Deletion of addition on account of unverified commercial advance.2. Deletion of addition on account of unsecured loans.3. Deletion of addition on account of Chukara Khata.4. Deletion of addition on account of various expenses.5. Deletion of addition on account of freight expenses.6. Admission of additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A.Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unverified Commercial Advance:The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 18,44,404/- made on account of an unverified commercial advance to M/s. Sona Trading Co. Bangalore. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, observing that the appellant received and recorded the trading advance in the books of account, with all transactions through banking channels. The confirmation from M/s. Sona Trading Co. was forwarded to the AO, who did not point out any defects. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, finding no inconsistency and dismissing the Revenue's ground.2. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unsecured Loans:The Revenue contested the deletion of additions totaling Rs. 53,56,546/- on account of unsecured loans. The CIT(A) deleted these additions after considering various documents, including confirmation letters, addresses, and PAN numbers of the creditors. The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loan transactions. The transactions were through banking channels and audited under section 44AB. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed the Revenue's ground.3. Deletion of Addition on Account of Chukara Khata:The Revenue was aggrieved by the deletion of Rs. 89,74,337/- made on account of Chukara Khata. The AO added this amount, suspecting unaccounted money was used for payments to farmers. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, explaining that the payments were made through Mandi, and non-compliance with same-day payment was not unusual. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting that the Revenue did not doubt the genuineness of the purchases or reject the books of accounts. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition and dismissed the Revenue's ground.4. Deletion of Addition on Account of Various Expenses:The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 4,22,283/- being 20% of salary, wages, and Hammali expenses. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating the AO made an ad hoc disallowance without reasons. The Tribunal observed the assessee's non-compliance with multiple notices and the AO's inability to examine the expenses due to time constraints. The Tribunal, balancing fairness, restricted the disallowance to 10%, confirming Rs. 2,11,141/- as disallowance. The ground was partly allowed.5. Deletion of Addition on Account of Freight Expenses:The Revenue also contested the deletion of Rs. 84,183/- being 20% of freight expenses. The CIT(A) deleted the addition on similar grounds as the salary and wages expenses. The Tribunal, considering the same non-compliance issues, restricted the disallowance to 10%, confirming Rs. 42,091/- as disallowance. This ground was also partly allowed.6. Admission of Additional Evidences in Violation of Rule 46A:The Revenue argued against the CIT(A) admitting additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A. The Tribunal found that the additional evidence was crucial for adjudicating the issues on merits, mainly to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the cash creditors. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to admit the additional evidence, dismissing this ground.Conclusion:The appeal of the Revenue was partly allowed, with the Tribunal upholding the CIT(A)'s deletions on several grounds but modifying the disallowance of expenses to 10% instead of 20%. The order was pronounced in the open Court on 28.05.2020.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
