9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 752X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ` 2,45,594/-. 3. The order of Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and the order of the A.O. be restored. 3. The brief facts of the case in ground no.1 are that the assessee has declared the following sundry creditors as at the end of the year relevant to the Assessment Year 2007-08 :- i) M/s. Krishna Traders ` 20,99,736/- ii) M/s. Chadda Brothers ` 3,00,000/- iii) M/s. Chaatwal Metals ` 1,05,000/- iv) M/s. Raman Enterprises ` 13,75,653/- 4. The assessee during the assessment proceedings produced copy of accounts, confirmation, PAN and names and addresses of the creditors. The creditors were issued notice under section 133(6) of the Income T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bogus and remaining as genuine which is against the principles of law. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. We are convinced with the arguments made by Shri Vinod Goyal, Advocate, the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the sundry creditors outstanding as at the end of the year relevant to the impugned Assessment Year are old creditors and therefore, they cannot be the subject matter of addition u/s. 68 of the Act during the impugned year. Moreover, the sundry creditors having been accepted by the Department in the earlier year is not under dispute. Moreover, it is quite illogical to make a disallowance of the outstanding sundry creditors at the rate of 50% and treat in the same breath the rest of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ving been closed is not under dispute. The stock sold as scrap has been accounted for in the books of account. No such defect has been pointed out by the A.O. that such sale of scrap had not been accounted for in the books of account. Therefore, in the circumstances and facts of the case, the A.O. is not justified in making the addition and that too the double additions, once the assessee having declared as sales of the stock as scrap and secondly by making the addition by the A.O. again of the same stock as income of the assessee. Such double additions are not admissible under law. In the circumstances and the facts of the case, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) who has rightly deleted the addition made by the A.O. Thus, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
