Case Law Details
Supreme Concrete & Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Cuttack)
It is admitted position that the loan from Sinclair Builders Pvt Ltd., has been obtained by account payee cheque. Confirmation, copy of account as well as the bank statement of the creditor has also been furnished. The assessee has also deducted TDS on the interest amount and the tax has also been deducted at source. The creditor is also assessed to tax. The AO found the difference between the account of the assessee and information obtained through invoking section 133(6) of the Act without considering the reconciliation statement produced by the assessee in regard to TDS. Hence, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (supra). Respectfully following the same, we hold that no addition of cash credit was called for.
As regards to the disputed amount of Rs.5,84,510/- showing in the name of Subarban Industries Ltd., it is argued by the assessee the said amount is against outstanding balance towards raw materials supplied and account information has been submitted before the AO during the assessment proceedings but the argument of the assessee is negated by the AO that no information was obtained u/s.133(6) of the Act. In this regard, the assessee relied on the confirmation received by the assessee from Subarban Industries Ltd., which is placed on record, wherein, it is stated that as on 31.3.2016, outstanding payable balance is Rs.86,13,611.11 which shows that raw material account balance is Rs.5,84,510/-. When this fact was brought to the knowledge of ld DR, he could not controvert the same. Hence, we hold that since the confirmation from the said party is furnished, no addition is called for on this account.
In the case of loan from MAKs of Rs.1,30,000/-, from Pratap Chandra jena of Rs.90,000/- are concerned, we find that the loan has been brought in cheque and repayment was also made in cheque through banking channel. In this regard, bank statements were furnished but the AO has not issued notice to the creditor u/s.133(6) of the Act to know the truth and added the same to the income of the assessee. Hence, we also find no justification to confirm the said amount and delete the same.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
