Case Law Details
Madhu Solanki Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
In the present case, First of all, the outstanding balances related to the purchases made during the year under consideration and not brought forward balances. The AO did not get reply from both the trade creditors and hence he proceeded to assess the outstanding balances, while accepting the purchases made during the year & payments made during the year. The AO has made the addition u/s 68 of the Act and did not invoke provisions of sec. 41(1) of the Act. On the contrary, the assessee has shown that the payments have been made in the succeeding year through banking channels. Accordingly, we are of the view that the revenue could not rely upon the decision rendered in the case of Sureshkumar T Jain. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that the AO could not have made addition of trade creditors u/s 68 of the Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 4.8.2009 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-2, Bangalore and it relates to the assessment year 1998-99.
2. This is second round of proceedings. This appeal was originally disposed of by the coordinate bench, vide its order dated 29.3.2010. The assessee filed the appeal before Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka challenging the order passed by the Tribunal and the Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 13.11.2018 passed in Income Tax appeal No. 283/2010 has restored all the issues to the file of the Tribunal for adjudicating them afresh. Accordingly, this appeal came to be placed before us for adjudication.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
