9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sequent period, the payment has been made by assessee by cheque and it was confirmed through the bank statement of the assessee as stated by the CIT A. So the whole addition was deleted. DR also could not show that where the ld CIT A has gone wrong. We have also carefully seen the reason given by the CIT A in para no three of his order and we do not find any infirmity in his order. We uphold the order of the CIT-A deleting the above addition of ₹ 3198701/- and ₹ 2360970/-. - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 6478/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 3-10-2018 - SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Revenue : Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR For The Assessee : Shri Himanshu Gupta, CA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the balance was ₹ 1094448/- therefore the dl AO made the addition of that sum. With respect to other two suppliers, as no information is received the ld AO made the complete addition of balances with respect to two creditors. Consequently further addition of ₹ 2360970/- was made u/s 69 of the Act. The assessee did not furnish explanation and AO treated ₹ 3198701- as unexplained expenditure applying provisions of section 69C of the. On receipt of information from buyers in case of suppliers he made addition of ₹ 2360970/- . Consequently assessment under section 143 (3) was passed on 17/3/2015 and determined total income of assessee of ₹ 5781121/- against returned income of ₹ 221450/-. 04. The assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction with the assessee, the supplier submitted the information about another party M/s K B Contractor wrongly. Further information was given by the assessee in 154 proceedings, which were rejected by the ld AO. Hence addition on information received with respect to the supplier, the dl CIT (A) deleted the addition of ₹ 3198701/- . With respect to other parties similar matter existed and confirmation was received so the ld CIT A deleted the addition. The facts submitted in para no three of the order was not controverted by the ld DR. With respect to only on party information was not received where the addition was only of ₹ 38930/- which has been verified by the ld CIT (A) that in subsequent period, the payment has been made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
