BHUPENDRA HOUSE CRANE SERVICE PVT. LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE DCIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE,, MEHSANA

We have heard the arguments of both the sides on this issue and also perused the relevant material available on record. The learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that a sum of Rs.71,34,793/- was payable by the assessee to M/s. New Bhupendra House Crane Services - a proprietary concern of Shri Hoshiyarsingh B. Luhar. He has submitted that the amount of Rs.1,85,167/- was paid by the assessee against the said liability but the same was wrongly debited to the personal account of Shri Hoshiyarsingh B. Luhar instead of his proprietary concern. To support and substantiate his contention, the learned Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the copies of the relevant ledger account placed at page Nos. 88-93 of the paper-book. The learned DR, on the other hand, has submitted that this contention raised by the learned Counsel for the assessee specifically for the first time before the Tribunal requires verification by the Assessing Officer. We find merit in this contention of the learned DR and since the learned Counsel for the assessee has also no objection for getting it verified by the Assessing Officer, we set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the same afresh after verifying the claim of the assessee that the amount in question was actually paid towards repayment of liability to the proprietary concern of Shri Hoshiyarsingh B. Luhar and it did not constitute an advance given interest free. Ground No.1 of the assessee’s appeal is accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

The issue raised in Ground No.2 relates to the addition of Rs.19,85,990/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A).

As noted by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings, there were certain credit balances in the books of the assessee which had not been paid for more than three years. Since the said credit balances representing trading liability payable by the assessee to four parties had remained outstanding for more than three years and there was no satisfactory explanation forthcoming from the assessee for keeping the said liability outstanding for more than three years, the Assessing Officer treated the said liability as ceased to have existed and made addition of Rs.19,85,990/- to the total income of the assessee under Section 41(1) of the Act. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the said addition.

We have heard the arguments of both the sides on this issue and also perused the relevant material available on record. The learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that all the four creditors in question representing the trading liability have been settled by the assessee by making payments to them in the subsequent year. He has invited our attention to the copies of ledger accounts of the said parties placed at page No.43 to 87 of the paper-book and contended that in view of the payments subsequently made by the assessee, the authorities below were not justified in treating the liability in question as ceased to have existed. Relying inter alia on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dattatray Paultry Breeding Farm (P.) Ltd Vs. ACIT, 104 taxmann.com 366, he has contended that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) by invoking Section 41(1) of the Act is not sustainable. The learned DR, on the other hand, has contended that the case made out by the learned Counsel for the assessee on this issue for the first time before the Tribunal requires verification by the Assessing Officer. We find merit in this contention of the learned DR. The impugned order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue is accordingly set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.