TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 579
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Period 01.04.1987 to 06.08.1997. 2. Ground No.1 relates to confirming the addition of Rs. 14 lakhsmade u/s.68 of the Act without considering the various submissions and explanation of the assessee. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee has accepted new/fresh unsecured loans amount to Rs. 61,00,044/- for which a showcause notice was issued by the AO. However, the assessee has failed to prove or furnished any satisfactory explanation. Since the assessment was also framed u/.144 of the Act, the AO therefore made addition of credit amount f Rs. 61,00,044/- as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the assesses has filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) wherein the assessee has submitted copies of co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT(A) held that the question drawn by the AO in remand report that credit is bogus cannot be disputed and the addition of Rs. 14 lakhs on this account was therefore sustained. However, the CIT(A) has deleted the addition in respect of Gayatri Transport of Rs. 3 lakhs as the assessee has produced primary evidence to address of party, PAN was given by the assessee the loan was repaid during the year under consideration, thus, a cleared up credit the difference in signature is only issue. The AO further observed that investigated when once same secondary evidence about the genuineness of the creditor is indicating. The creditor is assessed to tax at Gandhidham, therefore, this addition was deleted. Similarly, addition of Rs. 14,20,000/- in res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4/- out of Rs. 61,00,040/-. The ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that Shri M.P.Mehta, Proprietor of Al-Karim Handling & Transport Co. has appeared before the AO during the remand report and denied the transaction with the assessee, however, later on M.P.Mehta has accepted the transaction to be genuine. Therefore, the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the said addition without allowing the cross-examination of Shri M.Mehta. With regard to deletion to the addition of Rs. 47 lakhs in respect of other creditor the ld.Counsel for the assessee supported the order of CIT(A). 7. On the other hand, the ld.Senior Departmental Representative (SR.DR) submitted that the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition merely because contra c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee is dismissed. 9. With regard to ground of Revenue we find that the assessee has furnished details like copy of ledger account acknowledgment receipts, IT Return, Bank Statement and Cash Book, audited report. Further, the AO has also given a finding that the transaction is genuine in his remand report as mentioned in the para 5 of the appellate order. Therefore, merely because the person concerned were not appeared before the AO does not mean that the aforesaid creditors are not genuine. In the light of these facts, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the ld.CIT(A), accordingly same is upheld, therefore, ground no.1 of the Revenue of appeal is also dismissed. 10. Ground No.2 relates to confirming addition of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the facts and circumstances of the case that the Tribunal is not making addition on account of unpaid labour charges to modify the order of CIT(A) by directing the AO to estimate net profit at 1.75% instead of 1.41 % shown by the assessee. The CIT(A), therefore observed that the facts of the case in the sister concerns and also the assessee regarding the unpaid expenditure is same. The AO had also not made out the case even on sample items to confirm the AO's belief and cash might have been paid on account of labour and other expenses. Therefore, the CIT(A) following the order of ITAT has directed the AO to take net profit at 2% in place of 1.79 % declared by the assessee. Accordingly, the addition was restricted to Rs. 3,03,017/- as aga....