9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : None For the Revenue : Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A) - 12, New Delhi dated 27.02.2017 pertaining to A.Y 2012-13. 2. The grievance of the assessee is two-fold firstly, the assessee is aggrieved by the addition of ₹ 4,89,081/- out of ₹ 6,80,696/- and secondly, the grievance relates to addition of ₹ 11,10,334/- out of sundry creditors of ₹ 12,15,959/-. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of notice issued nor there in any application for adjournment. Therefore, we decided to proceed exparte. 4. Having heard the ld. DR, who placed strong reliance on the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant has claimed that trade creditors and debtors have submitted their confirmed copy of account to Assessing Officer 10.17 I have carefully considered the observations of the Assessing Officer and submissions of the Appellant. It is seen that sufficient opportunities have been provided to the Appellant. Now Appellant claims that confirmation might have been received by Assessing Officer after the forwarding the remand report. Appellant s application was forwarded to Assessing Officer vide this office letter dated 09.09.2016 and Assessing Officer has issued the notices u/s 133(6) on 23.09.2016 and she has submitted her reply on 18.11.2016. Therefore, there was almost time of two months during which no further compliance was made by c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, though Appellant has been given opportunity, no reconciliation could be done. Appellant has also not filed any reconciliation statement in rejoinder to the remand report with respect to the rest of the 13 parties. As such, onus cast on the Appellant is not discharged. Therefore, disallowance of Rs.l 1,10,334/- is sustained. 10.l19 With respect to the difference in the account of sundry debtors, it is seen that 6 parties out of the 9 parties have submitted their replies. In the case of M/s Fashion Next, Assessing Officer has issued notice u/s 133(6) to confirm the outstanding amount and submit the copy of debit note. However, M/s Fashion Next has not submitted any copy of debit note. Assessing Officer has also stated that there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and not on 28.04.2012 and 30.04.2012. Therefore, it is apparent that Appellant has not reconciled the difference as the amount of Rs. l,97,197/- is after taking into account the debit notes issued and not as claimed by Appellant. Assessing Officer has further submitted that balance of M/s Jaydee Export was taken instead of M/s Jung Garments. Therefore, disallowance on account of M/s Jung Garments is deleted. With respect to M/s Aman Exports, Assessing Officer has stated in the remand report that as per the account submitted by M/s Aman Exports, debit note of ₹ 729/- was issued on 23.03.2012 and cheque of ₹ 53,028/- was issued on 31.03.2012.1 have examined the claim of Appellant and it is clear that debit note of ₹ 729/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
