Since there is variation of decisions on ‘paid’ and ‘payable’ issue in view of the fact that the hon’ble Calcutta high court and Gujarat high court have decided the question in favour of the Revenue and the hon’ble Allahabad high court in the case of CIT vs M/s Vector shipping Services (P) Ltd has proceeded in favour of the assessee, the case law of hon’ble supreme court in the case of CIT vs Vegetable Products Ltd., 88 ITR 192 would apply so as to decide the issue in assessee’s favour.
Having heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record, there is no dispute in principle that the amount is otherwise disallowable on merits as has been accepted by the ld. AR in response to the second ground of the Revenue’s appeal.
From the facts of the case it reveals that not only the existence of outstanding liability of labour charges for so many years is improbable in the normal course of business but the assessee has also failed to give any evidence regarding the genuineness of the creditors,
When in the electronic filing of the return there is no provision for filing of the balance sheet, then non-furnishing of the balance sheet cannot lead to the presumption that there was no cash in hand with the assessee.
Investigation Wing informed the Assessing Officer of the assessee that they have carried out large scale investigation to unearth a huge racket including accommodation entry providers. Such entry providers found to be involved in giving accommodation entries in the form of bogus gifts/loans/share capital money etc.
In view of this position, there was no reason why reassessment proceedings should continue as no notice under section 143(2) of the Act was served on the assessee within the stipulated time. Decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Alpine Electronics Asia Pte. Ltd. (supra) and V.R. Educational Trust (supra) would be applicable.
If the assessee has really repaid the amount to the creditors then it will be injustice to him, if the amount is added to his income. Under such circumstances, we remand this case back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
Merely because, there was no separate lease agreement with various parties, is not decisive of the issue. The vehicles were given to various parties on per trip basis, and therefore, separate agreement for carting income for each trip with various parties is not practicable to be executed and produced before the Revenue authorities.
Liabilities are still outstanding in the balance sheet as on the last date of relevant accounting period in the statement of account submitted with the department. There is no material on record to prove that the said liabilities have ceased to exist.
At this juncture Shri Mishra in a malicious and contemptuous manner alleged that the Bench is hurrying the justice and burying the justice. Such type of unprovoked utterances from a Commissioner of Income Tax
