AMAR TIMBER TRADING CO,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(1)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1999/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 June 2018AY 2010-113 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had arrived at conclusions with due application of mind after considering the facts. Therefore, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be reasonable and saw no reason to interfere.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to produce suppliers to confirm purchases and substantiate them with documents. The assessee also failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of unsecured loan lenders. No plausible explanation was provided for disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia).

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) regarding purchases, unsecured loans, and disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. The captioned appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2010-11 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-32 [CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No. CIT(A)-32/IT-131/17(1)(2)/2013-14 dated 08/01/2015 qua confirmation of certain additions. None has appeared for assessee despite notice and no adjournment application is on record. Left with no option, we proceed to dispose-off the appeal on the basis of material ITA.No.1999/Mum/2015 Amar Timber Trading Company Assessment Year-2010-11 available on record and after hearing Ld. Departmental Representative, Ms. N.Hemalatha. 2. The following additions as confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) are in dispute before us:-

1.

No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1. Purchases made from three parties 2,29,511/- 2. Unsecured Loans received during the year 1,92,995/- 3. Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) for want of Tax 2,23,180/- Deduction at Source on freight payments TOTAL 6,45,686/-

3.

The perusal of order of first appellate authority reveals that the assessee not only failed to produce the suppliers before lower authorities to confirm the purchase transactions but also failed to substantiate the purchases with supporting documents. Similarly, the addition against unsecured loans has been confirmed since the assessee failed to prove the identify, creditworthiness and genuineness of the lenders before the lower authorities. The addition u/s 40(a)(ia) has been confirmed since no plausible explanation in this regard could be furnished by the assessee. We find that the first appellate authority has arrived at the above conclusion with due application of mind after considering the factual matrix. Therefore, finding the same to be reasonable one, we see no reason to interfere with the same.

4.

Resultantly, the assessee’s appeal stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th June, 2018 ITA.No.1999/Mum/2015 Amar Timber Trading Company Assessment Year-2010-11 Sd/- Sd/- (Saktijit Dey) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) �या�यक सद�य / Judicial Member लेखा सद�य / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांकDated : 27.06.2018 Sr.PS:-Thirumalesh

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →