TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 354
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s erred in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 15,36,170/- made u/s 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer without clearly looking into the merits of the appellants case. 2. The Ld. Assessing Officer Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) -30, Mumbai has erred in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 18,41,027/- made u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer without appreciating the facts of the appellants case". 2. Brief facts qua the issue raised in ground no. 1 is that, assessee is engaged in the business of trading in Hosiery goods. In the Balance sheet as on 31st March, 2007, on the liability side, outstanding sundry creditors were appearing, the details of which are as under:- Name....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee could not furnish any details or evidence whatsoever to show that there is an outstanding liability in the name of the "sundry creditors" as on the date of balance sheet. Further there is no business transaction from these parties and the liability is subsisting for more than 3 years. Therefore, there was sufficient reason by the AO to make the addition u/s 41(1). Accordingly, he confirmed the addition. 4. Before us, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the liability of the sundry creditors which was outstanding was mainly on account of damaged goods supplied by them, which was returned and no payment was made by the assessee to them. Further, these parties have not given up their right to receive the money from assessee, hence, additi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re was some sort of dispute regarding return of goods and non-payment, then same could have been brought on record, either by way of some kind of correspondence or communications between the parties or by way of ledger accounts of the parties. Once, the assessee is unable to discharge the primary onus cast upon him, then it is very difficult to reverse the finding of facts recorded by the AO as well as CIT(A). Under these facts, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) inasmuch as assessee has been unable to substantiate from the record that the liability in real sense is actually subsisting in this year and there is no cessation of liability. Thus, addition has rightly been made by and confirmed by the revenue authorities. Accordingly, ground no.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee submitted that, whenever, the cash was deposited, there were corresponding withdrawals also. The total cash of Rs. 10,65,555/- was made on 25 occasions and there were withdrawals of cash on 8 occasions for sums aggregating to Rs. 2,92,000/-. Thus, there was only cash deposits of Rs. 7,73,555/-. Similarly, the assessee has deposited 35 cheque amount of Rs. 7,77,000/-, which cannot be treated as 'unexplained' If overall amount on debit side and credit entries are to be analyzed then it can be witnessed that assessee has withdrawn total amount of Rs. 15,06,921/- on 29 occasions through account payee cheques in lieu of payment for the goods, suppliers bills. Complete details of cash and cheque deposits as well as withdrawals were furni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct that bank account of Sangali Bank Ltd. had not been disclosed in the return of income or in the books of account. Perusal of such bank account revealed that assessee had made cash deposits and cheques deposits and also issued cheques and made withdrawals. The aggregate of all deposits was Rs. 18,41027/- which has been confirmed by the CIT(A) consisting of cash deposits of Rs. 10,65,555/- and cheque amount of Rs. 7,75,472/-. The assessee before the CIT(A) had submitted that there had been corresponding withdrawals on 29 occasions both by cheque and by cash aggregating Rs. 15,06,902/- which were paid for suppliers bills and for the goods supplied by various parties. In other words, the transactions of deposits and withdrawals pertained to ....