TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 598
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 59,14,920/- as against returned income of Rs. 45,008/-. 2. That the assessment order passed by ITO and confirmed by CIT(Appeals) is unsustainable both on the points of facts and point of Law. 3. That for the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 54,49,961/- u/s. 68 being the amount payable to farmers for purchase of Sunflower Seeds and the addition was made on the ground that farmers were not produced for verification. 4. That the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the opening balance standing to the credit of M/s. Ammireddy Oil Limited & M/s.Krishnaveni Agrotech Products of Rs. 2,27,952/- & 1,91,992/- respectively are to be added u/s. 69C although both are brought down balances. 5. That the learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the year under consideration was filed by it on 29.10.2005 declaring total income of Rs. 45,008. In the assessment originally completed under section 143(3) vide order dated 28.12.2007, the total income of the assessee was determined by the A.O. at Rs. 59,14,923 after making additions of Rs. 54,49,961. The appeal filed by the assessee against the said order was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) and when the assessee filed a further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal vide its order dated 12.11.2010 set aside the orders of the authorities below and restored the matter to the file of the A.O. for completing the assessment afresh, after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. As per the directions of the Tribuna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctorily explained by the assessee in terms of section 68 and accordingly, the aggregate amount of Rs. 54,49,961 of such credits was added by him to the total income of the assessee under section 68 of the Act. 5. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the A.O. under section 68 observing that the primary onus to explain the relevant credits was on the assessee and the assessee having failed to discharge the said onus satisfactorily, the addition made by the A.O. under section 68 was fully justified. 6. We have heard both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. The learned D.R. has strongly relied on the order of the authorities below in support of the Revenue's case on this issue. However....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lates to the addition made by the A.O. on account of credit balances appearing in the books of account of the assessee in the name of M/s. Ammireddy Oil Ltd., amounting to Rs. 25,27,952 and in the name of M/s. Krishnaveni Agrotech Products amounting to Rs. 1,91,992 treating the same as unexplained, which has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) by treating the same as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. 8. As per the books of account of the assessee, a sum of Rs. 25,27,962 was shown as payable to M/s. Ammireddy Oil Ltd., as on 31.03.2005. Enquiries made by the A.O. directly with the said party revealed that there was no such outstanding balance as on 31.03.2005 and the assessee had already paid the entire amount to M/s. Ammir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of such expenditure was not satisfactorily explained by the assessee. He therefore confirmed the addition made by the A.O. on this issue by applying the provisions of section 69C instead of the provisions of section 68 as applied by the Assessing Officer. 10. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record. Although we find merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the corresponding expenditure on account of purchases having been incurred by the assessee in the immediately preceding year i.e., A.Y. 2004-05, addition under section 69C treating the same as unexplained expenditure could be made only in A.Y. 2004-05 and not in the year under consideration i.e., A.Y. 200....