TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1266
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng officer, who has not discharged the same at all. 3. The Learned PR CIT (OSD) (A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant has fully discharged his onus of proving the "nature & source of the receipts in his bank account along with necessary explanation" and when the assessees explanation was correct and the same was being supported by and not inconsistent with evidence on record, no addition by way of unexplained cash credit was called for. 4. The learned PR CIT (OSD) (A), failed to appreciate that the entire credits aggregating to Rs. 2,09,83,520/-, in the books of the appellant were to the credit of his customer. These credits had been unequivocally, confirmed by the said customer. In view thereof the invoking of section 68 and treating the some as income of the appellant was patently erroneous. 5. The learned PR CIT (OSD) (A), did not appreciate that if only the bank statements were to be relied on to the complete exclusion of the books of account, section 68 could not be invoked at all. 6. The Learned PR CIT (OSD) (A) failed to appreciate the evidentiary value of the documents on record in form of and in support of the identity, credit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceived by it may not be treated as his unexplained income for the year under consideration, though placed on record a self declaration that the said respective amounts represented his sale receipts, but however, failed to furnish any other documentary evidence which could corroborate the said claim. The A.O in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, being of the view that the assessee had failed to explain the nature and source of receipts of Rs. 2,09,83,520/- received from the aforementioned parties, therefore, treated the same as unexplained and added the same as the unaccounted income of the assessee for the year under consideration. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). During the course of the appellate proceedings the assessee placed on record the confirmations statement of A.V. forging Pvt. Ltd. and Equichem Enterprises, along with the complete addresses of both of the parties. The assessee further to drive home his contention that the aforesaid amounts represented the sale proceeds, placed on record reconciliation of turnover of purchases and sales as per the VAT return. The assessee further during the course of the appellate proceedings....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lon products (assessee)) (A/c No. 533011015910) Transaction date 1. Shree Ganesh Enterprises (A/c No. 533011009803) Rs. 90,00,000/- Rs. 3,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- 13.12.2008 14.01.2009 14.01.2009 2. M/s Astec Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. (A/c No. 533011015416) Rs.1,15,83,520/- 30.03.2009 It was further submitted by the aforementioned parties that they had made the payments on the directions of their supplier, viz. A.V. Forging Pvt. Ltd, therefore, there was no entry of the above transactions in their books of accounts in the account of the assessee, as they had no direct dealing with the latter. The aforesaid factual position was also confirmed by M/s A.V. Forging in its reply furnished with the A.O during the course of the remand proceedings, wherein it was clarified that M/s Shree Ganesh Enterprises and M/s Astec Life Sciences Ltd. who were his debtors, had made the payment on his behalf to the assessee. The A.O after deliberating on the aforesaid facts as were placed on record, however observed that though the assessee concededly had no business transactions with M/s Shree Ganesh Enterprises, but however, a perusal on the bank account of the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oresaid transactions. The CIT(A) observed that if at all the assessee would have wished to make accounting entries in a transparent manner, the funds would have been routed through the accounts of sale/purchase parties instead of following the lengthy process of exchanging the letters for effecting payments on each others behalf in a circumventing manner. The CIT(A) not being impressed with the manner in which the aforesaid transactions were claimed to have been carried out by the assessee, therefore, concluded that the assessee instead of coming up with the true facts, rather in order to support its aforesaid contention had managed letters from third parties, which could not be relied upon. The CIT(A) holding a conviction that if M/s Shree Ganesh Enterprises and M/s Astec Life Sciences Ltd. would had paid the amounts aggregating to Rs. 2,09,83,520/- on behalf of M/s A.V. Forging, than the assessee would not had been under any obligation to return back the very same amount to M/s Shree Ganesh Enterprises, as no business transaction was there with the said party. The CIT(A) on the basis of his aforesaid observations concurred with the findings of the A.O, and being of the view that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Enterprises: Sr. No. Particulars Amount 1. Paid on may behalf by M/s. A.V. Forging Pvt. Ltd. 5,03,99,957/- 2. Cheques paid by me 2,07,83,520/- 3. Cash Payments 1,00,000/- Total 7,12,83,477/- 8. We find that the assessee had claimed that the amounts aggregating to Rs. 2,09,83,520/- (i.e. Rs. 94,00,000/- (+) Rs. 1,15,83,520/-) was received from the aforesaid concern, viz. M/s Shree Ganesh Enterprises and M/s Astec Life Sciences Ltd. by way of part of the sale consideration, as per the directions of its buyer concern, viz. M/s. A.V. Forging Pvt. Ltd., while for the payment of Rs. 2,07,83,520/- (Rs.94,00,000/- (+) Rs. 1,15,83,520/-) made to M/s Shree Ganesh Enterprises was as per the directions and on behalf of its supplier concern, viz. M/s Equichem Enterprises. We are persuaded to be in agreement with the observations of the CIT(A) that the very nature of the jumbled transactions at the first blush does not inspire much of confidence as regards the veracity of the claim of the assessee. However, we cannot also be oblivious of the fact that now when the assessee had substantiated his explanation in respect of the amount aggregati....