9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the purchases from the said parties and has accepted the trading results. Considering the totality of the facts of the present case and considering the submission made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee before the AO and the CIT(A), we are of the considered opinion that the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition on account of difference in the accounts of the creditors. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment proceedings the AO noted that assessee has shown sundry creditors to the tune of ₹ 1,22,75,695/-. On the basis of details furnished by the assessee the AO issued letters u/s. 133 (6) to certain creditors. From the confirmations received from some of the creditors he noted difference in the case of the following creditors :- Name Difference Amount Amit Textile ₹ 1,33,784/- Kunal tech Fab India ₹ 10428/- New India Colour ₹ 2000/- Vishal Dyeing Chemical ₹ 7008/- M/s. Maya International Pvt. Ltd. ₹ 35034/- S. R. Textile ₹ 261063/- 5. He, therefore, asked the assessee to explain the difference and asked him to explain as to why it should not be added to the total income of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no. 1 of the paper book shows the balance of trade creditors in the books of the assessee and balance with the suppliers in their books and the difference, it is seen that the difference is credit difference. (i.e. the balance payable is less) Reconciliation statement was filed at page no.2 and 3 of the index paper book. The same was filed before Ld. CIT (A) also and not considered by him. In case of New Indian Color Company, the confirmation was filed at page no.7 and the difference was only because of opening balance of ₹ 1671.81. thus Ld. CIT (A) was wrong on facts on disallowing the same. A chart was also filed which shows balance, bills and payment made by the firm, which was furnished at page no. 39 of the paper book. (Refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year. There was an opening balance of ₹ 9308/- and the same was duly reconciled, however Ld. CIT (A) was wrong on facts on disallowing the same. A chart was also filed which shows balance, bills and payment made by the firm, which furnished at page no. 40 of the paper book. (Refer Page No. 32) In case of Maya International, copy of account was filed at page no. 33 & 34, the difference was only because of two bills in one there is a difference of ₹ 2545/- and in second bill, it was entered later as goods were inspected and purchase was done in subsequent date when the goods was approved and bill was settled, thus Ld. CIT (A) was wrong on facts on disallowing the same. A chart was also filed which shows balance, bills and paymen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not furnished any explanation before the AO. In our opinion the assessee in the instant case has fully discharged the onus cast on him by giving sufficient reasons before the AO and CIT(A) regarding the discrepancies in the accounts. Further it is a case where the liability payable is less than the balance shown by the creditors in 5 out of the 6 cases. Further the AO has not disputed the purchases from the said parties and has accepted the trading results. Considering the totality of the facts of the present case and considering the submission made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee before the AO and the CIT(A), we are of the considered opinion that the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition of ₹ 4,49,317/- on account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
