TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 1093
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). ITA No.773/Chd/2015 : 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had given advances to M/s J.V. Steel Traders as under : Date Particulars Type of Debit Entry Credit 01.04.2007 Opening Balance 13.07.2007 The Karnataka Bank Ltd. Ch.No.954017 Receipt 65,59,764 50,00,000 27.07.2007 The Karnataka Bank A/c 879, Ch.No.525133 Payment 50,00,000 09.01.2008 The Karnataka Bank A/c 879 Ch.No.525150 Payment 20,00,000 10.03.2008 The Karnataka Bank A/c 879 Ch.No.954325 Receipt 27,00,000 Total Closing Balance 1,35,59,764 58,59,764 77,00,000 3. The assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Worthy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition as made by the Assessing Officer to the tune of Rs. 4,70,913/- u/s 36 (1)(iii) of the income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the Worthy CIT (A) has also erred in not considering the submissions of the assessee, based on documentary evidences that the amount outstanding towards M/s J.V. Steel Traders was for the business purpose and, as such, no disallowance was called for. 3. That the Worthy CIT (A) has also erred in not considering the judgmentof M/s Bright Enterprises of the Jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court in IT No.224 of 2013. 4. That the addition as sustained is against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That the Appellant crav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd the learned representatives of both the parties, perused the findings of the authorities below and considered the material available on record. From the perusal of the order of the learned CIT (Appeals), we see that he has given his findings at para 2.3, which read as under : "2.3 I have considered the facts of the case, the basis of addition made by the Assessing Officer and the arguments of the AR during the course of appellate proceedings. The appellant is engaged in manufacturing and trading of bicycle parts and is purchasing sheet coil plate from M/s J.V steel traders. The appellant had paid interest of Rs. 25,69,289/-. The appellant received Rs. 50,00,000/- from the said party on 13.07.2007 and thereafter again paid Rs. 50,00,000....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... years material was purchased from the party. However, no evidence has been furnished to prove the said submission of the appellant regarding non availability of material. Further, the appellant has not given the details of the 'other reasons' and there is no proof regarding the rates' given as a reason by the appellant for not making the purchases. Since, the appellant has not been able to justify the reasons given by him in the shape of non availability of material and other reasons and in the absence of any supporting evidence to prove its claim, the same cannot be accepted. Further, as rightly he-Id by the Assessing Officer, the appellant has not been able to prove that the said material could not be bought from elsewhere an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her reasons' for giving advances. There may be thousands of reasons for giving such advances, which the assessee is not obliged to answer to the department, it in his business acumen according to which he takes these business decisions. It is not in dispute that M/s J.V. Steel Traders is a regular supplier and advances have been given during the regular course of business. Regular debit and credit entries are appearing in the ledger account. The purchases were made in the earlier as well as subsequent years. These reasons are enough to prove that advance was made out of commercial expediency. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the assessee on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hero Cycles (supra) is not out of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....After considering the submissions of the assessee, the learned CIT (Appeals) upheld the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer stating that he is neither an employee nor an agent of the assessee. The assessee could not prove the genuineness of the expenses. 14. Aggrieved by this, the assessee has come in appeal before us. The learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities, while the learned D.R. relied on the order of the Assessing Officer as well as of the learned CIT (Appeals). 15. We have heard the learned representatives of both the parties, perused the findings of the authorities below and considered the material available on record. We are in agreement with the findings of the learn....