9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee for non-reply from the various parties and made addition without confronting the assessee about the non-receipt of the replies by the Assessing Officer. Absence of reply from the creditors do not entitle the Assessing Officer to treat the creditors as bogus without bringing any evidence on record to prove the payable are not indeed not required to be paid. Thus considering applicability of provisions of section 41(1) and the judgments in CIT v. Vardhman Overseas Ltd [ 2011 (12) TMI 77 - DELHI HIGH COURT] referring to the judgment in the case of Jay Engineering Works Ltd.[ 2007 (9) TMI 263 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and applying the ratio laid down the case of CIT v. T. V. Sundaram Iyengar Sons Ltd[ 1996 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . For-A Company Ltd. were submitted during the assessment proceedings despite the fact that no confirmation has been obtained by the assessee from the said entity along with relevant details of purchase and custom duties paid. 4. The CIT(A), in facts and circumstances of the case, has erred in observing in para 4.4 of the appellate order that the AO has overlooked the evidences furnished by the assessee despite the fact that the entity M/s. For-A Company Ltd. was appearing as creditor in the books of the assessee as on 31.03.2016 which is perverse. 5. The CIT(A), in facts and circumstances of the case, has erred in accepting the assessee submission in para 3.1 of the appellate order that the creditors could not have received n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and circumstances of the case, the observation of CIT(A) in para 4.10 of the appellate order that addition should not be made in respect of balance creditors is perverse despite the fact that these sundry creditors were outstanding as on 31.03.2016 and that it was the duty of the assessee to provide confirmations irrespective of the fact of what has happened after 31.03.2016. 10. The CIT(A), in facts and circumstances of the case, has erred in merely accepting the submissions of the assessee without conducting any independent enquiry to verify the genuineness of the submissions made by the assessee which is against the ratio as laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jansampark Advertising Marketing Pvt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 06.05.2019 and submitted that the additional evidences furnished by the assessee cannot be submitted under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rule, 1962. 8. After receiving the rejoinder from the assessee against the remand report of the Assessing Officer, the ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence before the AO, and since the evidences are crucial for adjudication of appeal the same have been admitted. 9. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. We have gone through the order of the ld. CIT(A) in detail. The confirmation of M/s. FOR-A Company Limited from whom the assessee has purchased the equipment during the F.Y. relevant to the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing any addition or intimation to the assessee for non-reply from the various parties and made addition without confronting the assessee about the non-receipt of the replies by the Assessing Officer. Absence of reply from the creditors do not entitle the Assessing Officer to treat the creditors as bogus without bringing any evidence on record to prove the payable are not indeed not required to be paid. 12. Further, the assessee has submitted the details of payment in also the remission carried on in the subsequent years. The details are as under:- S.No Name of Creditors Amount as on 31.03.2013 Pending since Cleared on Remarks ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01.04.2018 06.09.2016 Paid on 06.09.2016 13. Hence keeping in view the facts of the case, decision of the ld. CIT(A), applicability of provisions of section 41(1) and the judgments in CIT v. Vardhman Overseas Ltd. in ITA No, 774/2009 decided on 23.12.2011, (2012) 343 ITR 408 (Del), the Delhi High Court, referring to the judgment in the case of Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT (2009) 311 TR 299 (Del) and applying the ratio laid down the case of CIT v. T. V. Sundaram Iyengar Sons Ltd. (1996) 222 ITR 344 (SC) under sec. 28 of the IT Act, considered the applicability of clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 41 as to what constitute remissions or cessation of trading liability, we decline t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
