TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 1101
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of Rs. 66,98,357/- made u/s.68 of the Act by the Ld.CIT(A). 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm and is engaged in the processing and whole sale trading of Raw and Wet blue Leathers. The assessee filed its return of income admitting an income of Rs. 340,080/- on 30/09/09. Subsequently a revised return was filed on 04/12/09 admitting an income of Rs. 3,77,880/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) and the case was selected for scrutiny by issue of notice dated 18/08/10 u/s 143(2) of the Act. The assessee's authorized representative appeared from time to time and gave the information and explanations that were sought for by the Assessing officer. The Assessing officer sought confirmation of the balance of su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the below mentioned creditors as follows:- 1.Credits unconfirmed/partially confirmed Name Balance as on 31.03.2009 Amount unconfirmed Addition upheld Remarks J J Traders 603679 475000 475000 Transactions have continued in 2009-10 and later years Rajesh Corporation 283883 12555 12555 Transactions have continued in 2009-10 and later years Standard Chemicals 182000 182000 182000 Balance continues till 31.3.11 and it is Nil in 31.3.12 Total 1069562 669555 669555 2. Address not given Name Balance as on 31.03.2009 Amount unconfirmed Addition upheld Remarks Siraj A 949380 949380 Affidavit submitted, old age, from Hyderabad ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ording to the ld.A.R, out of above credits, certain credits are only opening balance and it cannot be considered for addition in the assessment year under consideration and prayed that the same may be deleted. For this proposition, he relied on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. reported in [2008] 301 ITR 384 (Del). 4.2 On the other hand, ld.D.R submitted that before the lower authorities, the assessee has been given ample opportunities to prove the genuineness of the above credits, but the assessee was miserably failed to prove the genuineness and credit worthiness of the parties. After failing to prove all the ingredients of Sec.68, the assessee has agreed that out of sundry credit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the lower authorities, but confirmations were not furnished in respect of these impugned creditors due to the reasons explained in the remark column of the table extracted herein above produced. The contention of the Departmental Representative is that these credits are accepted by the assessee as unexplained and offered it as income u/s.68 of the Act before the lower authorities and the same cannot be questioned before the Tribunal. In our opinion, this argument of the Departmental Representative cannot be upheld in view of the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mariam Aysha V. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-Tax reported in [1976] 104 ITR 381 (Mad) wherein held that "that consent/acceptance given by assessee cannot g....