9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1081X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the finding of ld. CIT(A) Thus, ground no. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed. Addition u/s 69C of the Act for unexplained expenditure - difference in payments received by the vendor and the payments made by the assessee - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) after considering the merits of the case and facts indicated that the said difference was on account of cash payment made for purchase of husk, which was used by power and fuel and these cash entries have been duly acknowledged by the seller. The above findings fact by the ld. CIT(A) remains uncontroverted by the ld. DR, Therefore, we failed to find any infirmity in the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Ground no. 3 raised by the revenue is dismissed. - ITA No. 2116/Kol/2019 - - - Dated:- 22-11-2022 - Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Ashish Rustagi, CA, Ld.AR For the Respondent : Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. CIT, Ld.DR ORDER PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The instant appeal of the revenue is directed against the order dated 10-06-2019 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals [hereinafter referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... serve that the assessee provided complete details of sundry creditors along with the entries in the ledger account in order to show that various cheque return entries have been wrongly considered as purchases by ld.AO. We further find that the ld. CIT(A) after carefully examining the details filed by the assessee, deleted the addition observing as follow:- Ground No. 2 is relating to addition of Rs.1,97,30,393/ u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 owing to difference in the balance of certain creditors. The Assessing Officer had observed in the Assessment order that notice u/s 133(6) of Income Tax Act. 190 i was issued to certain creditors and replies from certain creditors had been received and in two cases i.e M/s Raja Builders and S.D trading Co., the letters were returned unserved owing to insufficient address. The A/R was intimated about the same. However the issue is dealt separately under Ground No. 3. Further the A/R was required to explain the difference in balance of' certain creditors from whom replies were received. The A/R had submitted detailed explanation in respect of the difference .in balances and the same was also considered by the Assessing officer during th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credited may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year In view of the above discussion when Civil Criminal Suits are being filed against the appellant company I do not think that there is any ground to invoke Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the difference in balance as the same is arising out of trade as the parties for which differences are arising are trade creditors and purchases are made from the said parties. Hence, addition of Rs. 1,97,30,3931 is hereby deleted. 9. The above finding of the ld. CIT(A) stands uncontroverted by the ld.DR. Therefore, under the given facts of the case we failed to find infirmity in the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Thus, ground no.1 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 10. Ground no.2 relates to addition of Rs. 93,92,892/- made by the ld. AO for unexplained cash credit on account of sundry creditors balance in case of M/s. S.D Trading Co. and M/s. Raja Builders. Complete details of the submissions along with their addresses and items purchased along with amount were filed before the ld. CIT(A). The said purchases were used by the assessee in carrying out its manufacturing activities. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies was pertaining to earlier years or transfer of balance of group concern which had been demonstrated before the A.O. as well as undersigned the addition made on the premises that the credits are not explained is hereby deleted. 11. The above finding remains uncontroverted by the ld. Departmental Representative and since the alleged addition is mainly on account of balance of the parties pertaining to the earlier year and transfer of balance of the group concern and thus we find no justification for making this addition. No interference is thus called for in the finding of ld. CIT(A) Thus, ground no. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 12. Ground no. 3 relates to deletion of addition of Rs.26,72,714/- made by the ld. AO applying the provisions of section 69C of the Act for unexplained expenditure. This arised on account of reply received from M/s. Srikant Dutta in response to letter issued u/s. 133(6) of the Act showing difference in payments received by the vendor and the payments made by the assessee. The reconciliation statement was filed by the assessee before the ld.AO as well as the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) after considering the merits of the case and facts indic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
