×Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India
These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.
ITA No.106/Ran/2019 has been filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi, dated 25.01.2019 for the assessment year 2015-2016 arising out of the order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act and ITA No.53/Ran/2019 has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 03.10.2018 passed by CIT(A), Ranchi for the assessment year 2013-2014 confirming the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.
ITA No.106/Ran/2019 (AY : 2015-2016)(quantum appeal) :
2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
1. For that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.2,77,65,917/- being the sundry creditors U/s 68 as alleged unexplained cash credit in the books of the assessee.
2. For that out of the sundry creditors amount of Rs. 2,12,36,651/- was the opening balance for the year under consideration. By no means can the opening balance be considered as unexplained cash credit and addition can be made U/s 68 for the year under consideration. As such, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in con irming the addition made by the Ld. AO to the tune of opening balance for the year under consideration. As such, the addition made is fit to be deleted.
3. For that for the year under consideration there was an additional sundry creditors for Rs. 65,29,356/-. Due to certain mishaps reasons we were unable to furnish complete details of the sundry creditors as such, as a matter of fact this amount was duly disclosed by us under IDS scheme wherein the assessee disclosed Rs. 1 Crore under the head business income. Disclosure was made thereby wherein taxes as due was paid. As such, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition made to this amount as unexplained cash credit.
4. For that the amount of sundry creditors was duly disclosed in our books of account and the same has not been written off for the year under consideration. As such, Ld.AO was not justified in making the addition for the same amount for the year under consideration. As such, the addition made is fit to be deleted.
5. For that the Ld. Assessing officer was not justified in charging interest on the assessed income. Interest U/s 234A and 234B be charged on returned income following the decision of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court.
6. For that other grounds in detail will be argued at the time of hearing.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who derives income from trading of mining tools and filed his return of income on 30.09.2015 declaring total income at Rs.62,90,060/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, the AO passed the assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act determining total income of the assessee at Rs.3,40,55,980/- making addition u/s.68 of the Act at Rs.2,77,65,917/-. Against the said order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), however, the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
4. Feeling aggrieved from the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
5. Ld. AR before us submitted that it is a settled preposition of law that where the purchases made have been accepted by the AO and the same is not disputed, then no disallowance of creditors is called for resulting the same. It was also contended by the ld. AR that moreover the authorities below failed to consider and accept our plea that the sundry creditors added during the year amounting to Rs.65,29,356/- stands disclosed under IDS. Assessee made a disclosure under IDS of Rs.1 crore under the head of Sundry Debtors and Business Income. Business income includes the amount of sundry creditors as the same if and when written off is treated to the income earned from business operations. The plea of the assessee should have been accepted and no further query was called for. In this regard, ld. AR relied on the order of coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Gulf Steel & Minerals, in ITA No.57/Ran/2016 for the assessment year 2010-2011,