9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1090X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icient time for filing confirmations before Ld. AO, an attempt could have been made to file those before Ld. First Appellate Authority. However, Ld. CIT(A) instead of proceeding to make an inquiry on this own or to given opportunity to the assessee, deleted the additions made by the Ld. AO. AO was proceeding with assessment on limited scrutiny as to mismatch in sale and large current liability in comparison to total assets, then only for the reason for not questioning purchases the opinion of Ld. AO could not have been interfered, when otherwise before Ld. CIT(A) there was no additional material or evidences. That being so, the grounds raised by revenue are sustained. The Appeal of Revenue is allowed and impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) is set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f trade payables above on lakh, an addition of Rs. 3,41,56,172/- was made to the income of the assessee company. Further, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee company was required to furnish confirmation in respect of Advance from Customers above one lakh. However, the assessee failed to furnish the confirmation. Accordingly, and amount of Rs. 3,97,586/- was added to the income of the assessee company. 2.2 Being aggrieved with the assessment order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A)-7, Delhi The CIT(A)-7, Delhi vide his order dated 09.09.2019 allowed the appeal of the assessee. The gist of relief allowed by the CIT(A) -7, Delhi is as under:- (a) Regarding applicability of provisions of section 68, L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by the Assessing Officer. Once this is accepted, we are of the opinion that the approach of the ITAT was correct inasmuch as the Assessing Officer did not consider this aspect while making additions of the sundry creditors under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. As there was no case for disallowance for responding purchases, no addition could be made under section 68 in as much as it is not in dispute that the creditors' outstanding related to purchases and the trading results were accepted by the Assessing Officer." (b) Further, the Ld FAA in his order observed that facts of the present case are similar those of the case of Vardhman Oversead Ltd. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the provision of sec. 41 are not applicable. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the report that "there is no such entity" at the given address. Accordingly, arguments of Ld. DR were heard who submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has fallen in error in setting aside well- reasoned order of ld. Assessing Officer. 6. Appreciating the matter on record it can be observed that primarily on the basis of no adverse observations on the purchases the Ld. CIT(A) had deleted the additions at the same time perusal of the order of Ld. CIT(A) in para 4.2 reveals that Ld. CIT(A) took into consideration the fact that assessee had only submitted evidences of confirmation in regard to Rs. 6,59,88,237/- vide reply dated 03.12.2018 and Rs. 7,66,68,682/- vide reply dated 07.12.2018 out of total papers of Rs. 21,36,37,757/-. Bench is of opinion, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
