GLOTTIS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 11, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2661/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 April 2018AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to prove the creditworthiness, genuineness, and identity of creditors. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination with fresh evidence.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made additions under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act for non-receipt of confirmation letters, lack of transaction evidence, and difference in books of account. The assessee claimed inability to provide confirmation letters as some creditors had left their business.

What were the issues?

Whether additions made under Section 68 were justified without providing the assessee an opportunity to furnish evidence regarding creditors and transactions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

For Respondent: Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Hearing: 03.04.2018Pronounced: 26.04.2018

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -13, Chennai, dated 30.03.2017 and pertains to assessment year 2014-15.

2.

The only issue arises for consideration is addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').

3.

We heard Shri Paul Sundar Raj, the Ld. representative for the assessee and Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, the Ld. Departmental Representative. From the orders of the authorities below it appears that the Assessing Officer made three additions under Section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer made addition of ₹37,30,340/- on account of non-receipt of confirmation letter from the creditors. The Assessing Officer also made an addition of ₹17,65,330/- on the ground that there was no evidence of transaction. The Assessing Officer made one more addition of ₹1,30,79,007/- being the difference between the books of account.

4.

Having heard the Ld. representative for the assessee and Revenue, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that an opportunity should be given to the assessee to prove the creditworthiness of creditors, genuineness of the transaction and identity of the creditors. The assessee claims before this Tribunal that the confirmation letter could not be filed since some of the creditors left the business and premises. If that is so, there is no necessity for the assessee to repay the credits. The assessee also claims that some of the credits were refunded to the respective persons. However, no evidence is available on record. In those circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be re-examined. Accordingly, orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the additions made by the Assessing Officer are remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the matter on the basis of the confirmation letters and other material that may be filed by the assessee and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →