9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n our considered opinion assessing officer was wrong in adding the credit under section 41(1). Accordingly, "we' hold that the addition is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 1582/Mum./2015 - - - Dated:- 3-3-2017 - SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by : Shri. Rajesh Kumar Yadav Revenue by : Ms. Neelam Jadhav ORDER Per Shamim Yahya This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of CIT-A dated 22.12.2013 and pertains to assessment year 2010-11. 2. The grounds of appeal read as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief to the assessee to the extent impugned in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Anand Parshuram Shetey should not be treated as your income. However, the assessee has not submitted the current status of the above said sundry creditor. Therefore, the onus is on the assessee to furnish the confirmations in respect of sundry creditors of ₹ 3,02,000/- but the assessee has failed to furnish the same, therefore, the amount of sundry creditors of ₹ 33,02,000/- are treated as seized to exist u/s. 41(1) of I.T. Act and added back to assessee s total income for the year under consideration. 4. Up on assessee s appeal Ld. CIT-A decided the issue as under; i) I have carefully and dispassionately considered the rival submissions. The A.O. doubted the genuineness of liability of ₹ 33,02,000/- in the na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt to A.Y.2010-11. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, the A.O. is directed to take necessary action in the year of liability. In case the said liability has been created in the previous year relevant to A.Y.2010-11, only then the addition of ₹ 33,02,000/- will be confirmed otherwise the said liability cannot be added in the A.Y.2010-11 and have to be deleted in the assessment of A.Y.2010-11. 5. Against above order assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that in this case assessing officer has noted that a sum of ₹ 32,18,500/- was outstanding against the creditor Mr. Anand P Shetey. On assessing officer enquiry assessee had responded that the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
