TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 984
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpugned order is illegal, opposed to the facts, contrary to law, without jurisdiction and against the principles of natural justice and therefore liable to be quashed. 2. Because the assessee filed copies of returns of his son Mr. Ragul for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 before the PCIT-1. 3. Because the remaining sundry creditors including Rs. 93,00,000/- in the Bricks Unit and Rs. 1,12,03,358/- in KK M Blue Metals unit are old balances of running accounts and not relating to this year and the details for Rs. 1,12,03,358/- were filed before the assessing officer in the letter dated 02.08.2017 highlighting that it was offered under Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. 4. Because the machinery worth Rs. 10 crores were purchas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....undry Creditors. The assessee in response to the notice appeared and filed the details called for. The Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] considered the details and completed the assessment. The Ld. AO vide order dated 22-09-2017 only observed that the assessee had not deducted TDS on Audit Fees of Rs. 70,000/-. Accordingly, 30% of the amount (i.e Rs. 21,000/- is disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] and the same was added to the total income of the assessee. 4. The case has been taken up for revision proceedings under section 263 of the Act and consequently, show-cause notice dated 23-07-2019 was issued and served on the assessee. The assessee was called to explain as to why the assessment order passed by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; 51,98, 944 Sundry Creditors in Bricks Units 93,00,000 Sundry Creditors in KKM Blue Metals 1,14,82,120 Mr. Ragul is son of the assessee. He was having fixed deposit with Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank. On maturity of Fixed Deposit during this assessment year 2015-16, the proceeds of the same Rs. 51,98,944/- was given to the assessee for his business purposes. Copies of the Income Tax acknowledgement of Mr. Ragul for the assessment year 2014-15 and 2015-16 is enclosed. The assessee has offered Rs. 1,12,03,358/- out of the Sundry Creditors as in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of their return of income and failed to verify the creditworthiness of assessee's claim of the Sundry Creditors. The assessee also failed to verify the details of machineries worth Rs. 10 Crores and its utilization for the assessee's business Blue Metals. 8. Heard the representatives of both the parties and perused the materials on record. Before us the Ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the Ld. PCIT. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. PCIT. We have carefully considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the materials on record. We observe that the assessee in order to prove the agricultural income of Rs. 40,00,000/- furnished the Land Revenue records of the State Government which indicates th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quiry on the agricultural income of Rs. 40,00,000/- as was claimed by the assessee. Accordingly, we decide this ground of appeal against the assessee. 9. Regarding the matter of Sundry Creditors, the assessee only disclosed the name and relation of Mr. Ragul who is one of the sundry creditors. No PAN, confirmation letters, address of the creditors, their creditworthiness were insisted / obtained by the ld. AO during the assessment proceeding. As the assessee borrowed money from some of the persons, the Ld. AO ought to enquire about the creditworthiness of the creditors. He ought to see whether the creditors confirm the credits given by them to the assessee. No such exercise was done by the Ld. AO. Therefore, we are of the view that the L....