TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 750
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3.2006, as against Sundry Creditors of Rs. 13,13,54,090/- in the immediately previous year. The details of Rs,25,02,57,062/- were submitted in the course of Assessment Proceedings. The appellant had shown Sundry Creditors of Rs. 21,22,25,160/- in respect of Raw Hide Suppliers compared to Rs. 10,43,53,503/- in the preceding year. The A.O. required the appellant to submit the confirmations from Raw Hides Suppliers and to prove the creditworthiness, genuineness and identity of the creditors. The appellant produced some Raw Hides Suppliers and Butchers and also submitted over 1400 confirmations from the creditors. The A.O. accepted the creditors whose confirmations were filed and balance were treated as unexplained and added in the income of the appellant Co. u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act 196`1." 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before CIT(A), who has deleted the addition and therefore, Revenue is in appeal before us. 5. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order. 6. As against this, Learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of CIT(A). He also submitted that in assessment year 2005-06 also, similar addition was made by the Assessin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in respect of which the assessee could not furnish any evidence or confirmation or any other evidence in support of having received the goods on credit, the Assessing Officer made the addition u/s 68 of the Act. 8. Now we examine the applicability of the Tribunal decision in assessee's own case for assessment year 2005-06. In this decision of the Tribunal, heavy reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon'ble jurisdiction High Court in the case of CIT, Agra vs. Pancham Das Jain [2006] 156 Taxman 507 (All). In this case, the basis of decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court was that the Tribunal recorded a categorical finding of fact on the basis of appreciation of materials and evidence on record that the said amounts represented the purchases made by the assessee on credit and therefore, the provisions of section 68 could not be attracted in the instant case. In the present case, we find that the assessee has failed to establish that in the present year also, entire creditors shown is in respect of goods actually purchased on credit. This is one thing that the assessee is claiming that the creditors are in the receipt of goods purchased on credit and this is alto....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e amount was not big and the credit period was also not very long. If a small amount of Rs. 10,000/- is outstanding against a supplier for small period of 10-15 days, it can be accepted that the assessee has purchased the goods on credit but in the absence of even such details, it is very difficult to accept that the goods were in fact purchased on credit. This is very much possible that the payment was made in cash from undisclosed sources but such payment was not accounted for and creditors were shown. When we appreciate the entire facts of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that in the facts of the present case, the assessee has failed to establish that the goods were purchased on credit in respect of creditors doubted by the A.O. and the assessee was supposed to establish this claim by bringing cogent evidence on record. 9. In view of our finding in the above Para that the assessee has failed to establish that the goods were in fact purchased on credit in respect of the alleged credit of Rs. 1,05,01,948/- for which addition was made by the Assessing Officer because the assessee could not even furnish the confirmation from them or their addresses or the party wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... aspect but when we consider overall facts, it comes out that the assessee is not in a position to establish the claim that the goods were purchased on credit from these suppliers and therefore, in the facts of the present case, this judgment actually supports the case of the Revenue because on considering overall facts, it comes out that the assessee has failed to establish that this much goods were purchased on credit. Regarding the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pancham Das (supra), we have already considered this judgment while dealing with the applicability of the Tribunal decision in assessee's own case for preceding assessment year. Regarding two other Tribunal decisions cited by Learned A.R. of the assessee which are available on page 12 of the written submissions, we find that these are not reported decisions but the copy of the decisions are submitted by the assessee on pages 160 to 164 and 165 to 167 of the paper book. In the case of DCIT vs. Divine International (supra), it was noted by the Tribunal in Para 17 that it was explained by the assessee in that case that in view of the record having been destroyed in the file, it is not in a ....