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>Tribunal dismisses Revenue's appeal, upholds deletions related to fictitious liabilities, unexplained cash credits, and interest disallowance.</h1> The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding deletions of additions related to fictitious liabilities, unexplained cash credits, and interest ... - Issues Involved:1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 8,47,276 as fictitious liability.2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 6,44,527 as payments not made or taken back.3. Allowance of depreciation of Rs. 7,51,558 against Rs. 3,69,730.4. Deletion of addition of Rs. 20,04,000 on account of unexplained cash credits.5. Deletion of addition of Rs. 1,62,312 disallowing interest on unexplained cash credit.6. Sustaining addition of Rs. 1,00,000 to trading results on account of excess burning loss.7. Sustaining disallowance of Rs. 2,49,188 out of commission expenditure.Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 8,47,276 as fictitious liability:The Assessing Officer (AO) questioned the amount payable by the assessee-firm to Shri T.P. Sahu on conversion of his proprietary business into a partnership. The AO suspected the cost of acquisition of assets was inflated and made an addition of Rs. 8,47,276. The assessee contested that the statement of Shri T.P. Sahu, used by the AO, was not made available for cross-examination, violating natural justice principles. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted the addition, finding the evidence provided by the assessee credible and noting the AO's failure to confront the assessee with T.P. Sahu's statement.2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 6,44,527 as payments not made or taken back:The AO added Rs. 6,44,527, assuming excess payments shown to T.P. Sahu were either not made or were taken back. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, agreeing with the assessee's argument that the AO's reliance on T.P. Sahu's statement, without giving the assessee a chance to rebut, was unjust.3. Allowance of depreciation of Rs. 7,51,558 against Rs. 3,69,730:The AO allowed depreciation of Rs. 3,69,730, suspecting the cost of assets was inflated. The CIT(A) directed to allow depreciation of Rs. 7,51,558, based on the evidence provided by the assessee, confirming the cost of acquisition of assets.4. Deletion of addition of Rs. 20,04,000 on account of unexplained cash credits:The AO added Rs. 20,04,000 as unexplained cash credits, doubting the creditworthiness of creditors from whom partners borrowed funds. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that all creditors were income-tax assessees and had confirmed the loans. The Tribunal upheld this, stating the assessee had discharged its burden by proving the identity and capacity of the partners and creditors.5. Deletion of addition of Rs. 1,62,312 disallowing interest on unexplained cash credit:The AO disallowed interest of Rs. 1,62,312 on the unexplained cash credits. Since the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the unexplained cash credits, the interest disallowance was also deleted.6. Sustaining addition of Rs. 1,00,000 to trading results on account of excess burning loss:The AO added Rs. 1,00,000, finding the burning loss of 7.1% excessive compared to the Expert Committee's report indicating up to 5%. The CIT(A) sustained this addition. The Tribunal, however, deleted the addition, referencing a prior decision accepting a burning loss of 10%, thus finding the assessee's claim reasonable.7. Sustaining disallowance of Rs. 2,49,188 out of commission expenditure:The AO disallowed Rs. 2,49,188 paid to M/s Balaji Steel Industries, questioning the necessity and business expediency. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal agreed, noting the lack of detailed support for the commission payments and the control of the assessee's partners over the recipient firm, thus affirming the disallowance.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletions of additions related to fictitious liabilities, unexplained cash credits, and interest disallowance, while allowing the assessee's cross-objection regarding burning loss. The Tribunal sustained the disallowance of commission expenditure.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
