9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 930X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , consideration of land is not in doubt, no evidences that parties have been paid from undisclosed sources, addition of outstanding amount treating it as bogus sundry creditors cannot be made. No reason to sustain the order of the Lower Authorities with respect to the outstanding. Accordingly, the addition to them to extent that purchase of land is deleted. Addition for creditors for various services and purchases - HELD THAT:- It is not always necessary that creditors should always remain present in the assessment of debtors. Of course, if the transaction are unusual, alarming and there are evidences that those creditors are bogus, situation may be different. Here in this case, no such abnormal circumstance are shown. Accordingly, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. (i) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding ex-parte order passed by AO u/s 144 r.w.s 143(3) dated 29/12/2016 of the IT Act, 1961 which is bad in law as AO has passed order u/s 143(3) and also u/s 144 which is not permissible in law thus there is no application of mind by AO. (ii) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144 dated 29/12/2016 as valid order without appreciating the fact that no mandatory show cause notice under first proviso to sec 144 is issued and served on assessee in respect of addition made y AO. 2. (i) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence, the sundry creditors amounting to Rs. 2,44,85,512/- were added to the total income and consequently assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 29/12/2016 determining the total income at Rs. 2,47,96,252/-. 04. Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee challenged the order passed u/s 144 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act as bad in law and further on merits the addition made of Rs. 2,44,85,512/- was contested. The main contention of the assessee is that out of Rs. 2,44,85,512/- of sundry creditors, sum of Rs. 2,31,65,707/- are the persons to whom such sum is payable on account of purchase of land at Panvel. Assessee filed relevant agreement for purchase of land, where nam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing all the submissions, remand report and rejoinder of the Assessee, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition u/s 68 of Rs. 2,44,85,512/- for reason that before the Assessing Officer, assessee was asked to produce the sundry creditors along with copies of bill etc. but same were not produced. The ld CIT (A) even did not delete the addition of sundry creditors who confirmed the transaction u/s 133 (6) and ld AO did not have any other adverse remark in remand proceedings on those parties amounting to Rs. 11,81,755/-. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Therefore, the assessee aggrieved and is in appeal before us. 05. The Ld. AR submitted detailed written submission on the issue. He also relied upon several judicial precedents. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the Lower Authorities. 07. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the order of the Lower Authorities. We find that on 16th September, 2013 a sale deed of agricultural land situated at Panvel, Raigarh was entered in to for purchase of land by assessee at total consideration of Rs. 2,96,75,707/- from nine different parties. All those parties are agriculturist residing at Panvel, Raigardh. As the assessee is builder and agricultural land is required to be converted into non agriculture land. Part of the payment was made to the parties. A total amount of Rs. 40,10,000/- was paid at the time of the sale agreement and balance sum of Rs. 2,96,75,707/- was to be paid a later on at the time of sale deed. There we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do not find any reason to sustain the order of the Lower Authorities with respect to the outstanding of Rs. 2,31,65,707/-. Accordingly, the addition to them to extent that purchase of land is deleted. 08. Second addition is with respect creditors of Rs. 13,19,805/- for various services and purchases. In the remand proceedings, the creditors worth Rs. 11,81,755/- have submitted their confirmation as well as ledger account in response to notice u/s 133 (6) of the Act. Despite these facts, the ld CIT (A) did not delete the addition for the reason that assessee failed to produce them before ld AO in assessment proceedings. We find that when the parties have confirmed the transaction on direct enquiry by the ld. AO, there is no reason to sust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
