TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 584
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cheque. It was also noted that there were further amount received totaling Rs. 2,25,052/- on various dates in the Financial Year 2001-02 in cash. The balance amount of Rs. 20,04,783/- was shown a outstanding as on 31.03.2002. It has also been noted by the AO that subsequently that amount was also received. The relevant observation of the AO is as under: "3. The balance amount of Rs. 20,04,783/- was shown as outstanding and out of it, Rs. 19,99,913/- was received by the assessee through different cheques of Rs. 6360/-, Rs. 4,80,000/-, Rs. 56,128/- Rs. 13,39,425/- Rs. 1,18,000/- deposited in its account on 28/3/2002, by crediting account of Shri Sultan Virani. Thereafter, the amount was transferred by Journal entry in the account of Shri C.R. Patil, Prop, of Shri C.R.Patil Estate and ultimately in the F.Y. 2003-04 amount of Rs. 17,44,913/- was transferred through Journal Entry by debiting Shri C.R. Pateil's account and crediting Bharat Jari Works on 1.4.2003 3.1 During the assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2004-05, the assessee had failed to establish the purpose as well as nature of transaction relating to cheques of Rs. 19,99,913/- received by it as above and also failed to es....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order for A.Y. 2004-2005. The death certificates of the above two persons were also placed on record of then AO. (2)(a) As observed by then LAO, we had issued cheque No. M004308 of Rs. 44,29,835/- on 12.01.2002 in favour of M/s. Bharat Jari Works. The said cheque was deposited in the account of M/s. Bharat Jari Works. This fact had been verified by then AO from the Bank account statement of M/s. Bharat Jari Works obtained by then AO directly from the Diamond Jubilee Bank. (b) Thus, this fact proves that we have issued the cheque of Rs. 44,29,835/- to M/s. Bharat Jari Works as Trade advance and even for sake of argument it is accepted that same is not a trade advance then also it is proved from the record available that subject payment was made to Bharat Jari Works and same were receivable by us from Bharat Jari Works. Please further note that the cheques/payment received from M/s. Bharat Jari Works, represent the amounts received back from M/s. Bharat JariBharat Jari Works towards the (Trade) advance made to them. This will show the fact that the transaction has originated from the amount advanced to the M/s. Bharat Jari Works and we have not taken any loan from M/s. Bharat Jari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h M/s. Bharat Jari Works. All the cheques claimed to have been received from M/s. Bharat Jari Works, including cheque of Rs. 22,00,000/-, have been received by the assessee on 26.03.2002 and 28.03.2002, i.e. after the deaths of Shri Mahendra Kapadia husband of the proprietor Smt. Kailashben and power of attorney holder Shri Rajesh Kapadia, but before the death of Smt. Kailashben who was a paralytic partient and was unable to write or to walk i.e. incapable to sign the documents. Moreover, during the interrogation by the then A.O. Shri Nilesh Kapadia, son of the proprietor stated that he had not known about the transactions with the assessee and the business of M/s. Bharat Jari Works was closed after the death of his father. Hence, the question arises as to who issued cheques in favour of the assessee for repayment of so called Trade Advance of Rs. 44,29,835/-. Therefore, the credit balance is rightly added by the AO u/s 68 as per the settled position of law with regard to the cash credits because the appellant has failed to establish the identity of the creditor as well as genuineness of transactions and capacity of the creditor. In view of these reason the grounds of appeal are di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....considered as a genuine repayment. Learned Sr.D.R. has also pleaded that the bank transaction was carried out after the closure of the said account; hence, the Revenue Authorities have rightly rejected the explanation of the Assessee. 7. We have heard both the sides at some length. We have perused the orders of the authorities below. At the outset, it is worth to mention that almost on identical facts in the past for A.Y.2004-05 the AO had raised doubts in respect of the return of advance and in identical manner invoked the provisions of Section 68 of IT Act. On that basis for A.Y.2002-03, the year under consideration; during re-opened proceedings the return of advance was doubted and taxed in the hands of the assessee. It is worth to mention that the AO as well as learned CIT(A) have referred on number of occasion the action of taken against the assessee for A.Y.2004-05. Therefore, the vehement contention of learned AR before us is that in a situation when the impugned addition was based upon the action taken in A.Y. 2004-05, however, that now stood deleted by the Tribunal in order dated 9th of July, 2010 (supra) then this Appeal should also be decided on the same lines. We find ....