9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... undred Sixteen Only) from 11 sundry creditors were bogus and thereby upheld the addition made by the A.O. of Rs. 9,14,516/-. 2. The brief facts of the case are: during the processing of income tax return filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2006-07, declaring an income of Rs. 1,38,320/-, the case was put under scrutiny through CASS and consequently, notice u/s 143(2) dated 19.10.2007 was issued. The assessee attended the assessment proceedings from time to time and claimed his sundry creditors to the following effect:- 1 M/s. Mayur Electronics Rs.28,159/- 2 M/s. Verma Engineering Works Rs.1,59,955/- 3 M/s. S.L.B. Exports Ltd. Rs.48,430/- 4 M/s. J.K. Tube Co. Rs.24,248/- 5 M/s. N.K.A. RCC Pipes Sup. Rs.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .18,750/- 6 M/s. R. K. Enterprises Rs.83,326/- 7 M/s. Natraj Sanitary & P Rs.68,354/- 8 M/s. Rajni Build. M. Sup. Rs.4,500/- 4. The assessee has also furnished some copies of bills in support of claim of creditors but the copies of bills pertaining to M/s. Ved Generators, Sumit Katyal and N. K. Agarwal do not reflect charging of interest nor any such instruction have been given. Consequently, A.O. arrived at the conclusion that Inspector of Income Tax of the concerned ward be deputed for inquiry report of M/s. R, J, Enterprises Verma Engineering works, Natraj Sanitary and Hardware Paints and Ved generators and the same sundry creditors are not existing at the given address. Consequently, the A.O. arrived at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee has no liability towards the said eleven creditors and the claim of Rs. 9,14,750/- was bogus one and the A.O. has rightly made the addition of Rs. 9,14,750/- and prayed for dismissal of the present appeal of the assessee. 9. Undisputedly, M/s. J. K. Tubes and S.L.B. Exports Ltd. have denied the claim of transaction with the assessee whereas, remaining nine parties were called upon to supply the information during assessment proceedings and remand proceedings u/s 133(6) of the Act. However, the notices sent to them have been received back unserved and without compliance. For ready reference, the outcome of the notices issued to the assessee is reproduced as under:- S.No. Name & address status 1 Shri Yr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... postal authorities. 10. We have heard authorized representatives of the parties to the appeal and gone through documents placed on record in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Keeping in view the undisputed fact that the assessee has placed before Assessing Officer the confirmations made by his nine sundry creditors as required u/s 133(6) of the Act, documents relied upon by the parties and submissions made before the Bench, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the impugned order dated 29.08.2014 in affirming the addition of Rs. 9,14,750/- made by the A.O. vide order dated 16.12.2008 for the following reasons:- i) that both, the A.O. as well as Ld. CIT(A) being ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.O. nor any effort has been made to serve them through substitute service; v) that confirmation filed by assessee pertaining to nine parties / sundry creditors detailed at page 20 of the impugned order ought not to have been rejected merely on the ground that the letters sent to them by the A.O. have been received back unserved except with thorough probe; vi) that it is abundantly clear from the facts on record that A.O. has failed to verify confirmations filed by the assessee rather rejected the same on the basis of conjectures and surmises. 12. In view of what has been discussed above, the impugned order dated 29.08.2014 passed by ld. CIT(A) affirming the addition of Rs. 9,14,750/- made by A.O. vide order dated 16.012.2008 is not s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
