9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 873X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra dated 22.2.2013 in ITA No.211/Agra/2012 in respect of assessment year 2006-07. 4. The appeal has been preferred by the department on following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the ITAT was justified in upholding the deletion made on account of unconfirmed creditors when it is clear that the A.O did not get sufficient opportunity to controvert the additional evidence filed before the CIT (A). 2. Whether the ITAT was justified in upholding the order of the CIT (A) solely on the grounds that PAN was provided. 3. That the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in confirming the order of the CIT (A) which allowed relied of Rs.45,46,166/- on account of disallowance out of expenses though the assessee had failed to produce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are quoted as below:- "11. We have heard the ld. representatives of the parties and records perused. We do not find substance in the submission of the ld. departmental representative that the matter should be sent back to the file of A.O as the details were filed before the CIT (A). We notice that the AO has wrongly recorded the fact that on the date of hearing dated 27.12.2010 the assessee/Authorised Representative did not appear before the A.O whereas the fact is that the assessee/Authorised Representative appeared before the A.O and the A.O himself recorded statement of some parties which are filed in the paper book. The A.O has recorded blind in correct fact which is not appreciable. Merely mentioning that the case is going to be barr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he AO did not doubt about the genuineness of those parties. The AO himself recorded the fact in the remand report that he has also accepted the statement of almost all the creditors recorded on 27.12.2010 except creditor for the amount of Rs.40,998/-. When the AO himself accepted the genuinness of the creditors before the CIT (A) in the remand report and the CIT (A) has deleted the addition to that extent, we are of the considered view that there is no error in the order of CIT (A) in deleting the addition of Rs.1,25,69,815/-. The Revenue has failed to point out any contrary material to the finding of CIT (A) in respect of disallowed amount as well as on account of creditors being the addition made under Section 68. In the light of the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
