TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 184
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee's representative Shri Deb Kumar Basu, an accountant appeared and produced a copy of Bank account and later on 23.11.2011 produced a cash book. From such cash book, the Assessing Officer found that assessee had taken unsecured loans totalling to Rs.57,00,000/- during the period 21.08.2008 to 31.03.2009. The representative of the assessee stated that loans were received from friends/ relatives for the purpose of business. However, it seems that assessee did not provide details of loan creditors. 5. On 30.11.2011, assessee appeared himself alongwith a new representative, namely Advocate Shri Alokesh Kundu. In the letter filed by Advocate Alokesh Kundu, it was stated that assessee had not taken any unsecured loan whatsoever. As per the assessee, the cash book produced on 23.11.2011 was not of his proprietary concern. Assessee also produced a new cash book. Assessee also mentioned that audited accounts filed alongwith the return, did not reflect any unsecured loan. However, Assessing Officer found that both the old cash book as well as new cash book were having the same opening cash balance. Receipts from various sundry debtors on various dates were also identical. As per the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he original cash book purchases have been directly entered thereby necessitating cash balance which have been made up by unsecured loans, where as in the present cash book the purchases have been fragmented thro ugh various small payments thereby negating availability of cash. (5) Confirmations produced on 16.12.2011 by the assessee as supporting evidence of purchase are of same hand writing, purportedly written by the accountant of the assessee Shri Gurupada Dutta. Thus all confirmations are at the instance of the assessee and duly prepared by his accountant. There is not a single instance where original purchase bills could be produced. (6) Confirmations of purchases collected directly from the parties by issuing notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act, are not identical with those submitted on 16.12.2011. (7) Further, following differences appear from cross verification of new cash book and replies received against no tice u/s. 133(6) of the Act which is stated below :- (a) In the case of Samir Kundu As per Ledger As per new cash book For these reasons, Assessin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the period 07.04.2008 to 17.08.2008. It was not the case of an assessee, who was carrying out any ongoing works. Total receipt of the assessee, undisputedly was only Rs.1,08,80,470/-. All the work undertaken by the assessee during the relevant previous year were completed by 09.08.2009. Against a total contract receipt of Rs.1,08,80,470/- addition of Rs.57,00,000/- was unfair and unjustified. According to ld. AR, in support of the cash book produced on 30.11.2011, assesese had produced copies of confirmations given by various parties. Relying on such copies and confirmations placed at pages 177 to 244, ld. AR submitted that all these parties were existing. All these parties had confirmed the account of the assesese as appearing in their respective books of accounts. Sale effected by them to the assessee and the payments effected by the assessee to them were correctly reflected therein and tallied with the cash book produced on 30.11.2011. According to him, the difference pointed out by the Assessing Officer in a few number of cases were insignificant. This at the best were isolated instances where the parties failed to show the receipt of the sums from assessee. This would not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ook produced on 30.11.2011, furnished confirmation from various parties from whom it had purchased the materials, copies of which have been placed at paper book pages 177 to 244. Account of the assessee as appearing in ledgers of various parties were produced beore CIT(Appeals). Assessing Officer has in his remand report been able to point out only a few discrepancies listed at para 6 above, in such accounts, when compared with the cash book produced by the assessee on 30.11.2011. Ld. CIT(Appeals) during the course of appeal proceedings, had, no doubt, required the assessee to produce the auditor of the assessee. Though the auditor did not appear, in his letter dated 16.12.2011 addressed to the ld. CIT(Appeals), he certified that there were no personal loans in the books audited by him. He also filed a full copy of cash book audited by him, which was also certified by him on every page. He also mentioned that cash book was genuine and there was no fragmentation of entries. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the certificate and certification done by the auditors . Attendant circumstances, in our opinion, show that lower authorities ought not have brushed aside the cash book pro....