MURAD IBRAHIM KHAN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER W-23(2) (3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5843/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 August 2021AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the issue was a matter of reconciliation and that there was no remission or cessation of liabilities. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-appreciation of facts, with a direction for the assessee to reconcile the outstanding amounts.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns the confirmation of an addition of Rs. 45.29 Lacs under Section 41(1) related to three entities. The Assessing Officer made additions based on notices issued, and the CIT(A) confirmed the additions after considering the responses from these entities.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made under Section 41(1) were justified, considering the assessee's claim of adjustment of liabilities in subsequent years.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 41(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Saboo-Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhle- Ld. Sr. DR

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai [CIT(A)], dated 16/08/2019 in the matter of assessment framed by learned Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 143(3) on 31/03/2015. The assessee is aggrieved by confirmation of addition of Rs.45.29 Lacs u/s 41(1) with respect to three entities viz. M/s Shreeji Enterprises, M/s Shree Krishna Sales Agency & M/s Siddhi Vinayak Infra Pvt. Ltd.

2.

The impugned additions were made by Ld.AO since notices were issued to these entities u/s 133(6) during assessment proceedings. M/s Shreeji Enterprises replied that they did not own any amount. M/s Shree Krishna Sales Agency denied having made any sale and purchase to the assessee during the year whereas no reply was received from M/s Siddhi Vinayak Infra Pvt. Ltd.

3.

The Ld. CIT(A) noted that M/s Shreeji Enterprises & M/s Shree Krishna Sales Agency confirmed Nil amount against the assessee whereas M/s Siddhi Vinayak Infra Pvt. Ltd. confirmed balance of Rs.4.58 Lacs as against balance of Rs.38.92 Lacs reflected by the assessee. Accordingly, full additions were confirmed against first two entities whereas addition of Rs.34.34 Lacs was confirmed against the third entity. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

4.

The Ld. AR submitted that first two entities had reflected Nil balance since these parties had adjusted the outstanding amount in this year whereas the assessee has adjusted the same in the next year. Similarly, the third entity adjusted amount of Rs.35 Lacs in this year as against the fact that the assessee adjusted this amount in the next year. In support, ledger extracts of all the entities have been placed on record.

5.

We find that the issue is only a matter of reconciliation and we find strength in the argument of Ld. AR that there was no remission or cessation of these liabilities. Therefore, we restore the matter back to the file of Ld.AO to reappreciate the facts with a direction to the assessee to reconcile the outstanding amounts to the satisfaction of Ld.AO.

More judgments on Section 41(1)

All 1,943 judgments and leading authorities on Section 41(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →