TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 1015
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amics Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 15,00,000/- M/s Anshu Hospital Rs. 20,00,000/- Total Rs.5,66,44,000/- 5. The assessee was called upon to furnish confirmations from the above parties along with their income-tax returns and balance sheets etc. to prove the genuineness of credits. The assessee furnished a certificate from Mudra Exports confirming debit balance in its name at Rs. 3,15,14,000. The AO found the balance as not tallying inasmuch as the loan was received for a sum of Rs. 3.35 crore. On being called upon to furnish particulars in respect of all the four creditors, the assessee showed its inability to furnish any documents in respect of M/s Mudra Exports on the ground that they refused to give any such document. The AO issued notice u/s 133(6) to M/s Mudra Exports, but no compliance was made. In view of the foregoing facts, the AO made addition of Rs. 5,66,44,000/-. During the course of first appellate proceedings, the assessee furnished details regarding all the four creditors as additional evidence. Complying with Rule 46A, the ld. CIT(A) sent such additional evidence to the AO for comments. The AO submitted remand report dated 13.5.2010 objecting to the adm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... regular books of account to another and the balance is shown in the balance sheet, there cannot be any question of doubting the genuineness of the credit, more so, when the said amount has been accepted as genuine in the assessment of that other person. A copy of assessment order passed in the case of Mudra Exports is available at pages 56 and 57 of the paper book. It is discernible from the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act in the case of Mudra Exports that the genuineness of the transaction of advancing loan by Mudra Exports to the assessee has not been disputed. Be that as it may, we find from the impugned order that out of total amount received by the assessee from Mudra Exports at Rs. 3.35 crore, a sum of Rs. 2,38,34,000/- was directly advanced by this party by means of various cheques issued on different dates, the details of which are available on record. The remaining amount of Rs. 97 lac was obtained by the assessee indirectly from Mudra Exports by recovering the amounts from their debtors which amounts were directly paid to the creditors of the assessee. The details of parties from whom the assessee received loans on behalf of Mudra Exports and paid the same ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2010, a copy of which is available on page 89 and 90 of the paper book. Apart from the above three amounts of Rs. 50 lac each, it has been mentioned that a sum of Rs. 46,10,000/- was paid vide cheque No.779195 dated 4.4.2007. The position which, therefore, results is that the assessee is claiming to have received a sum of Rs. 46.10 lac from S.V. Liquor on 30.3.2007, where this party is showing to have paid this sum to the assessee in the next financial year on 4.4.2007. We are unable to understand as to how the payment of Rs. 46.10 lac made by S.V. Liquor India Ltd. vide cheque dated 4.4.2007 can be received by the assessee before that date on 30.3.2007 and recorded with the narration of 'the amount received and paid to Railway.' One can understand if the amount is paid by A to B and the A records transaction in his books of account on the date of making of draft or issuance of cheque and B records the same in his books of account later on at the time of its actual receipt. However, the position in the instant case is converse inasmuch as the payer is claiming to have made payment on 4.4.2007 and payee, that is the assessee, is showing to have received this amount on 30.3.2007. Un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t loan taken. This amount of Rs. 20 lac claimed to have been advanced to Anshu Hospital is not directly traceable from the face of the balance sheet. The ld. AR gave the same explanation as given for Mudra Ceramics above. Following the view taken hereinabove in the context of Mudra Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., we set aside the impugned order on this issue and send the matter to the AO for deciding it in conformity with our above directions. 11.1. Ground No.3 is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 15,80,000/- made by the AO on account of pending share application money. From the balance sheet furnished by the assessee, the AO observed that share application money to the tune of Rs. 15.80 lac was pending allotment as on 31.3.2006. It was, therefore, opined that this was a case of cessation of liability for which addition of Rs. 15.80 lac was made. The ld. CIT(A) ordered for the deletion of addition. 11.2. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record, we find that the viewpoint of the AO treating the amount as cessation of liability, impliedly u/s 41(1) of the Act, is not tenable. Section 41(1) is attracted where any allowance or deduction has been made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i and Jyothi Transport is only to the extent of Rs. 7 lac and odd, while a sum of Rs. 3,16,50,188/- was paid to Indian Railways and a further sum of Rs. 3,14,414/- was paid to Kolkata Port Trust towards freight for carriage of goods by Railways. Section 194C provides for making deduction of tax at source by any person responsible for paying any sum to any resident for carrying out any work in pursuance of a contract. The term 'work' has been defined in clause (iv) in Explanation below section 194C(7) to include, inter alia, "(c) carriage of goods or passengers by any mode of transport other than by Railways." Thus, it is evident that freight or transportation charges paid for carriage of goods or passengers by any mode of transport are covered within the meaning of section 194C save and except the carriage of goods or passengers by Railways. In other words, any payment made for carriage of goods or passengers through Railways cannot be covered u/s 194C of the Act. In so far as payment of Rs. 3,16,50,188/- is concerned, it was directly made by the assessee to Railways for which there can be no default for non-deduction of tax at source. As regards the payment for a sum of Rs. 3,14,4....