9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 1183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d reasons for nonpayment. 3. After considering the details furnished by assessee, the AO made an addition of ₹ 1,38,452/- observing in para 7.2 as under: - 7.2 In response to above notice, confirmation of certain parties have been furnished which have been duly considered. There are certain creditors which were having opening balance of last year, hence they were allowed in this year. But regarding four creditors i.e. (i) B.K. Vinod Co. Pvt. Ltd. Delhi amounting to ₹ 48690/- (ii) Chuni Lal Keval Krishna Delhi, ₹ 24960/-,(iii) S.K. Engg. Works Ghaziabad ₹ 22624/-, and (iv) S.R. Electricals Delhi, ₹ 42178/- (totaling to ₹ 138452/-) assessee failed to furnish the confirmation letter complete address ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with adequate opportunity of being heard and therefore, deserves to be quashed. 2. That the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of ₹ 130,452/- was by the AO on account of four creditors simply for want of confirmation. 3. That the appellant craves for right to amend/modify/drop or add to the above grounds of appeal. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that purchases have not been disputed. Only creditors have been disputed because the confirmations could not be provided. He submitted that the purchases pertained to F.Y. 2005-06 and, therefore, during assessment proceedings in 2011 it was not possible to submit the confirmations of these petty creditors. In the alternative, he submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t taking into consideration relevant material and by placing reliance on irrelevant materials. Where the Tribunal acted partly on relevant and partly on irrelevant materials, and it was not possible to say to what extent the latter had influenced its mind, the finding was vitiated because of the use of irrelevant material. The Tribunal had no material to come to the conclusion that the sum of ₹ 3,82,750/- could not be treated as the assessee s income from undisclosed sources. 10. We find that facts in the present case are also similar to La Medica s case. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court, we confirm the order of ld. CIT(A). 11. In the result, the assessee s appeal is dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
