9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 663X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry confirmation along with details - all the transactions were through bank account and there were regular dealings with the party - The AO had not disputed the purchases from the party - when all the relevant details regarding creditor were furnished by Assessee, no addition was warranted - necessary verification of confirmation has not been done, thus, the matter is required to be remitted back to the AO for the purposes of examining the confirmation filed by the M/s Affain Steel Pvt. Ltd. and if no discrepancy is found there then no addition is called for – Decided in favour of Assessee. - I.T.A .No. 3165 /Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 4-6-2014 - Shri S. V. Mehrotra And Shri Chandra Mohan Garg,JJ. For the Appellant : Sh. Ajeet Dhawan, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,000/- deserve to be deleted. 5. In all the four grounds, the only issue is regarding addition of Rs. 10 lacs u/s 68. Brief facts apropos this issue are that Assessing Officer noticed that assessee had shown several parties as creditors. He requisitioned the copies of accounts of various parties by issuing notice u/s 133(6) of the Income-tax-Act. He has observed that in the case of one party viz M/s Affain Steel Pvt. Ltd. SIDCUL, Haridwar, no reply was received. Therefore, the assessee was required show cause as to why credit balance appearing against this party may not be treated as bogus liability at Rs.10 lacs and may not be added to assessee s income. He has further observed as under:- The assessee could not submit any explana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel further pointed out that as far as the findings of lower revenue authorities regarding agreed addition are concerned, the same are not correct. In this regard, Ld. Counsel referred to Statement of Facts filed before Ld. CIT(A) wherein, interalia, it was stated as under:- The fact however are that the credit balance of Rs.10,00,000/- standing in the appellant s books of accounts to the credit of M/s Affain Steel Pvt. Ltd was duly confirmed by the creditor vide its letter dated 13/12/2011 addressed too the Ld. AO which for the rush of papers in his office during the relevant time couldn t reach the appellant s file. Moreover, the appellant had vehemently contested the proposed addition of Rs.10,00,000/- and had never agreed to it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer and the documents on record. Ld. CIT(A) has taken note of confirmation but without considering the specific ground raised before him held that assessee had agreed for the addition. Therefore, the confirmation filed by the party has not been considered by both the lower revenue authorities. The Assessee had duly discharged its primary onus by furnishing the necessary confirmation along with details. We find from the confirmation that all the transactions were through bank account and there were regular dealings with the party. The AO had not disputed the purchases from the party and, therefore, when all the relevant details regarding creditor were furnished by Assessee, no addition was warranted. However, since necessary verification of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
