TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even before the ld. CIT(A), but he proceeded to sustain the addition made by the AO to the extent of ₹ 1 lakh observing that the payment made by the concerned debtor having not been accounted for by the assessee in its books of account, the same might have been spent out of books of accounts or was available with the assessee. He accordingly held that the addition to the extent of ₹ 1 lakh was liable to be made under section 69A or 69C of the Act. In my opinion, this altogether new basis adopted by the ld. CIT(A) while sustaining the impugned addition, was not supported by any evidence and the same being based on mere surmises and conjectures is not tenable. Therefore, delete the addition made by the AO on this issue and sustain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... balance in the account of the concerned sundry debtor as bogus to that extent. 3. The addition of ₹ 1,36,815/- made by the AO was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted by the assessee that the balance in the account of the concerned debtor, as per its books of accounts, was a result of sales made to the said party and since the entire sales made to the said party were already accounted for by the assessee, the difference added by the AO resulted in double addition. The difference was also explained by the assessee by stating that certain payments claimed to have been made by the said party in cash at the fag end of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... difference in the balance arisen as a result of any payment made by the said party but not accounted for by the assessee cannot be treated as income of the assessee, as the same would result in double addition. It is observed that this stand was taken by the assessee even before the ld. CIT(A), but he proceeded to sustain the addition made by the AO to the extent of ₹ 1 lakh observing that the payment made by the concerned debtor having not been accounted for by the assessee in its books of account, the same might have been spent out of books of accounts or was available with the assessee. He accordingly held that the addition to the extent of ₹ 1 lakh was liable to be made under section 69A or 69C of the Act. In my opinion, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
