TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 184
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0,000/- made by the Assessing Officer, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). 4. Facts apropos are that assessee, a Civil Contractor, engaged in the business of civil construction, had filed his return for the impugned assessment year declaring income of Rs.8,85,284/-. During the course of hearing, assessee was required to produce details of purchases and books of accounts. On 12.09.2011, assessee'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 sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to produce the bills. Assessee, however, furnished on 07.12.2011, names and addresses of the parties from whom material was purchased. Departmental Inspectors were deputed to verify the genuinity of purchases and after enquiry Departmental Inspectors reported that some of the parties were not related to the business of assessee for supplying any materials, and some others could not be found in the given address. Later on, assessee produced copies of his account as appearing in the ledgers of the sellers, but the Assessing Officer was rel uctant to accept it. According to him, handwritings in these ledger accounts were similar to the handwriting of Shri Gurupada Dutta, accountant of the assessee. One of the sundry creditors, namely Shri Gu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance 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, Assessing Officer went by the cash book produced by the assessee's representat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e us, ld. AR strongly assailing the orders of the authorities below submitted that the cash book furnished by his representative on 23.11.2011 was of a different entity. According to him, assessee himself had appeared before the Assessing Officer on 30.11.2011 and produced the correct cash book. All purchases as well as all payments were correctly shown therein. Trade creditors had confirmed the receipt of payments. Assessee had also produced confirmations from the trade creditors for the sales affected by them to him and the payments given by him to them. Therefore, according to him, non-consideration of the cash book produced on 30.11.2011 was unjustified and arbitrary. Relying on paper book page no. 11, ld. AR submitted that the contract....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessing Officer to be not tallying with the confirmations given by such parties, it cannot be a reason for making an addition of Rs.57 lakhs as unexplained unsecured loans. Assessee had not taken any unsecured loans and, therefore, addition made was totally incorrect. 9. Per contra, ld. D.R. strongly supporting the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) submitted that assessee had produced two sets of cash books. Opening cash balance in both sets were same. Various debtors also tallied. What happened was that in original cash book assessee had made purchases and paid for it then and there. Since there was no cash balance available, it had shown personal loans. Later on, when the Assessing Officer required details of personal loans, assessee fragmented....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hom 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 c....