TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 824
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessment years 2013-14. 2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 21,66,30,814/- made u/s. 68 of the Act has been challenged before us by the Revenue. Such addition has been made into following two parts: i. Addition of Rs. 13,82,40,814/- u/s. 68 on account of difference in amount realized from trade debtors as against amount outstanding. ii. Addition of Rs. 7,83,90,000/- u/s. 68 on account of difference in amount realized from trade debtors as against amount outstanding. 3. The brief facts leading to the case in this remains that the assessee made trade advances to various parties in the current year as well as in the earlier year as per business requirements. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was found from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ld. AR, therefore, relied upon the order of deletion of addition made by the Ld. CIT(A). 5. We have heard the respective parties and perused the relevant materials available on records. We find that the ld. DR relies upon the order passed by the ld. A.O. and he repeatedly argued that no proper evidence was ever submitted before the ld. A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings. 5.1. We find that while deleting the addition made by the ld. A.O., the ld. CIT(A) observed as follows: "5.2 Ground no. 1 relates to the addition of Rs. 13,82,40,814/-, where this addition has been made by AO, invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act due to the reason that this amount received from various persons during the year under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een further argued that identity of the persons are duly proved, having trade transactions with them since long and they are having PAN, bank account. The transactions has been duly confirmed and thus creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction are also not in doubt. 5.6 It is observed that as per the balance sheet and the details provided by the appellant, the appellant has also advanced money to various persons amounting to Rs. 9,98,93,689/, Which includes Kwality Ltd., Delta Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. (earlier known as JMD Veg Oils P. Ltd.), JMD Oils Pvt. Ltd. and others. Therefore, the contention of AO that appellant has received excess amount over the opening balance of loans and advances is not found Correct, to the extent of mon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rne out of record and as discussed in foregoing paragraphs, it is not established that appellant has excess realization of loan amount and the provisions of section 68 is not found applicable over such trade debtors. Therefore, the addition made amounting to Rs. 13,82,40,814/- is directed to be deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed." 6. It appears that the details of bank accounts of the earlier year were submitted by the assessee evidencing the cheques as received from the debtors i.e. M/s. Kwality Dairy India Ltd. since not encashed during the previous year i.e. the financial year 2011-12 and it is the same entry which has been reversed back in the current year. A copy of the accounts of the M/s. Kwality Dairy India Ltd. for the ye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce, the appeal before us. 7. Heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties, we have also perused the relevant materials available on record. Following tabular statement was also provided by the assessee as appears from the records of the case: Name Opening balance Entry reversed in the year on account of cheque not encashed in earlier year Amount advanced during the year Amount realized during the year Net amount due as on 30.03.2013 Dewana Dairy 22,67,983 45,425,400 31,190,000 78,390,000 493,383 7.1. It reflects from the above that there was an opening balance of Rs. 22,67,983/- and Rs. 4,54,25,400/- was written back on account of cheque received in the earlier year but not enca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....transactions are being carried out in past years. Further, AO has not considered the amount given during the year under consideration, which is borne out of record and to be considered being duly confirmed by the said party. It is also seen that there has been various sales to this party earlier and therefore it cannot be said that identity is in doubt. 6.4 Further, with regard to the contention of appellant that the cheque Was received at the fag end of the close of financial year, which was though taken and amount was treated as received, however subsequently written back as not realized and finally paid, the AO could not establish that this is an additional payment received by the appellant. It is also observed that being a trad....