TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 48
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....line facts are identical for ground no. 2 raised in Revenue's Appeal and therefore, we deem it proper to consider Revenue's Ground No. 2 alongwith solitary grievance of the Assessee together for the sake of brevity. 3. Facts emanating from the assessment order shows that during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the AO asked the assessee to explain the sundry creditors of Rs. 48,80,73,557/- appearing in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2004. The AO observed that the Assessee has merely submitted the names of the parties alongwith the addresses. Notices u/s. 133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961 were issued, but many of the parties on the basis of the addresses given, out of which many were not complied with. This has been explained in the table form as under:- Amount as per books of IKEA Amount confirmed / not replied Balance to be added M/s Anisa Carpets Limited 4612608 4612608 APL Delhi 5765282 5765282 APL Mumbai 4402603 4402603 Asian Handlooms 20855076 20855076 Atlantic Fabrics 9375816 NIL Baranwal Carpet Mfg. Co. 3789345 1915116 1874229 Carpet Inte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce being upheld of Rs. 1,01,67,885/- (Rs. 57,65,282 + 44,02,603_. The appellants gets relief of Rs. 13,67,57,609/-." 4.1 Aggrieved by the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), both the Assessee and Revenue are in appeals before us. 5. Ld. Counsel for the Assessee reiterated what has been stated before the lower authorities. It is a say of the Counsel that the AO has made the additions on the balance outstanding as on 31st March. It is a say of the Ld. Counsel that the entire outstanding is in relation to purchases made during the year under consideration and no adverse inference has been drawn so as to purchases are concerned. The Ld. Counsel vehemently stated that once the purchases have been accepted as genuine, the balance outstanding as on 31st March out of such purchases cannot be added u/s. 68 of the Act. 5.1 The Ld. DR strongly supported the finding of the AO and vehemently stated that before the Ld. CIT(A) balance amounting to Rs. 12.47 crores were confirmed out of total disallowance of Rs. 14.69 crores. It is a say of the Ld. DR that Ld. CIT(A) ought to have confirmed the difference of Rs. 2.22 crores whereas the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed only Rs. 1.01 Crores. 6. We have g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d income will not be assessed again as the income of the declarant for any assessment year under the Income-tax Act. Obviously the only provision, which the Assessing Officer can invoke for assessing the amount credited in the books of account, is section 68 of the Income-tax Act, but by virtue of section 68 of the Finance Act, 1997, the applicability of section 68 of the Income-tax Act to the amount declared under the VDIS is ruled out. But the immunity stops there. When the asset representing the declared income or acquired out of the declared income is later sold, the powers of the Assessing Officer to examine the question whether there has been a real sale of the asset is not curtailed in any manner by any of the provisions of the VDIS, 1997. Supposing, to give an example, an assessee files a declaration under the VDIS that he had acquired gold bars for Rs. 5 lakhs out of his undisclosed income. He is required to credit his books of account with Rs. 5 lakhs as required by section 68 of the Finance Act, 1997, in addition to paying the tax thereon at concessional rates under the VDIS. Once the amount is credited the same cannot be taxed again for any as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r may rely on section 68 of the Income-tax Act. 178. Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned counsel for one of the interveners contested the aforesaid position by submitting that the sale proceeds credited in the books cannot be treated as cash credit simplicitor so as to enable the Assessing Officer to invoke section 68. He says that the sale proceeds have been shown as income in the sense that after deducing the cost of the asset from the sale proceeds, the balance has been declared as capital gains and therefore the sale proceeds cannot be probed under section 68 and the assessee cannot be asked to prove the nature and source of the monies. His further submission is that in the cases before us, it is the department which says that the sale proceeds are in truth undisclosed income of the assessee and they have moved from the assessee and have been brought back as sale proceeds and, therefore, it is for the Assessing Officer to adduce evidence to show that the monies have emanated from the assessee. He contends that the apparent should be taken as the real state of affairs and if the department questions the same it is for them to prove that the apparent is not the real. Though prima fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee considering the voluminous details filed only sample copies of Duty Draw Back / reimbursement. Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee furnished the complete details alongwith supporting evidences and demonstrate that the Duty Draw Back has been reimbursed through the account payee cheques to the supporting manufacturers of the equivalent amount as soon as its account was credited by the electronic duty transfer. Ld. CIT(A) considered the evidences alongwith the Remand Report and observed that the AO has sent the notices u/s. 133(6) of the Act to the parties who were not at all in the list of Duty Draw Back. Ld. CIT(A) further observed that out of the list of 21 parties in respect of whom the disallowance of duty draw back was made, notices were correctly sent only to 02 parties. Since the notices not issued to the correct parties in respect of whom the disallowance have been made. The Ld. CIT(A) found that the claim of the assesssee was correct on perusing the complete details furnished by the assessee and accordingly deleted the disallowance of Rs. 20,15,27,543/-. 10. Before us the Ld. DR strongly objected to the admission of additional evidences. It is a say of the Ld. DR t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d u/s. 40(A)(2)(b) of the Act. The assessee furnished the details of remuneration paid to Director and claimed the same as per Industry Norms and is not in excess of either limits prescribed under the Act or the Industry Norms for the particular class of industry. The AO was of the opinion that the assessee has failed to justify the nature of services rendered by the Directors so as to command such a huge remuneration. The AO accordingly, restricted the remuneration to Rs. 50 lacs and treated the balance of Rs. 56 lacs to the income of the assessee. 15. Assessee strongly agitated the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) and vehemently contended that the AO has not come to any logical conclusion nor has given any cogent reasons to justify the disallowance. It was brought to the notice of the Ld. CIT(A) that the AO has grossly failed to show that such expenditure is excessive and or unreasonable. 16. After considering the facts and submissions, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that in the case in hand, the employees are not the interested parties rather they are professionally qualified employees. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that the AO had failed to bring on record or substantiate that how....