TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 1209
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the assessee read as under: "1. That the impugned order has been passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) without proper application of mind, as such it is not sustainable in law and facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in holding that the addition on account of credit entries amounting to Rs.22, 12,450 can be made u/s 41 (1) of the IT. Act, 1961 if not u/s 68 of the IT. Act, 1961. The addition of Rs.22, 12,450 made by the Ld. Assessing Officer on account of following 4 parties has wrongly been confirmed:- (i) M/s K.S.Munjal Inds. Rs.6,80,200/- (ii) M/s New Era Enterprises Rs.4,08,825/- (iii) M/s Ludhiana Metals Rs.5,65,000/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Appeals) is not justified in confirming addition of Rs.50,000/- out of addition of Rs.96,1007- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer on account of various expenses incurred by the Appellant for Business purposes. 7.That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming 1/5th disallowance out of Car expenses and depreciation. Disallowance of Rs.73,622/- out of Car expenses incurred by the Appellant for business purposes is untenable and uncalled for. 8.That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming additions and disallowances without considering appellant's various legal and factual contentions. The evidence and material on records has not been given due weight, which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itors totaling Rs.22,12,450/- and as the assessee had failed to discharge his liability, the said amount was added as income under section 68 of the Act. It was further noted by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had reflected liability of Rs.2,32,289/- on account of commission payable. The assessee was asked to furnish confirmation and also since when the same was outstanding. The Assessing Officer had noted that during the year under consideration the assessee had not incurred any expenditure on commission and had also not incurred any expenditure on commission in assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The explanation of the assessee before the Assessing Officer was that the said commission payable pertains to assessment year 2004-05.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....The assessee furnished rejoinder to the Remand Report filed by the Assessing Officer which is reproduced at page 4.5 of the appellate order. The CIT (Appeals) had noted that the advances were received in the earlier years. However, additions made by the Assessing Officer totaling to Rs.22,12,450/- were confirmed. Further addition of Rs.2,32,289/- on account of commission payable was also confirmed. The plea of the assessee that the outstanding amount had been paid in the later years, was rejected and addition was confirmed by the CIT (Appeals). 8.The assessee is in appeal against the order of the CIT (Appeals) vide ground of appeal. 9.Shri Hari Om Arora appeared for the assessee and Shri Manjit Singh put appearance on behalf of the R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id liability is still outstanding. In spite of that material, the Assessing Officer made the addition of the amount on the basis that this liability has ceased to exist and the same is not payable by the assessee, and treated the said liability as income by invoking provision of section 41(1) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), while deleting the said addition, has observed that the similar addition was made in the case of Febon Con, Faridabad, where the similar liability was shown to be payable to the same party, i.e., M/s Axis Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Faridabad. In that case the said addition was deleted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. It is the admitted position that the said order of the Income-tax App....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Industries. Despite several opportunities the assessee failed to produce the evidence in respect of the said advances and the said were treated as income of the assessee. 14.Even before the CIT (Appeals) the assessee furnished copies of account of the said party and stated that the outstanding balances in the accounts of the said party were on account of purchases. The second advance of Rs.3,97,000/- outstanding in the account of M/s M.K. Industries was claimed to have inadvertently shown as advance from customers. Although the said amount outstanding was on account of purchases, however the assessee failed to furnish any evidence in respect of the same and the addition was confirmed in the hands of the assessee. The assessee had filed ....