9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bstantive grounds in the instant appeal. Its first grievance is that CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in reversing the Assessing Officer's action adding unreconciled sundry credit amount of Rs.45,25,959/- made in the course of assessment. We notice that CIT(A)'s detailed discussion on the instant issue reads as under:- "In summary, Ground No 2 stands adjudicated against the appellant. 07. Ground No.3 [a, b & c]: This ground is related to the addition by the AO of Rs. 45,25,959/- on account of 'Disallowance of expenditure regarding sundry creditors'. This issue has been dealt by the AO in assessment order as under:- 'The assessee company has shown sundry creditors to the tune of Rs. 1,86,07,720/- in its balance sheet. Noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the accounts of the appellant are subject to statutory audit under the Companies Act 1956, Tax Audit u/s. 44AB of Income Tax Act and mandatory audit of the CAG, the Appellant being a Government company. In none of these three audits, any discrepancy in the Sundry Creditor's account has been found or mentioned. The confirmations have been obtained without any reference to the Appellant. Besides, the discrepancies were explained with adequate evidence. There is no mention of thee Reconciliation statements filed by the Appellant. (Annexure C). On the basis of such perfunctory scrutiny and suspicion without any substance, the AO has made such large addition. In fact, the Appellant has duly purchased goods/services from the two parties involve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the provisions of section 68, it would not be out of place to mention that one has to keep in mind the legal maxim lex non cogitad impossibila which means the law does not compel any person to do that which he cannot possibly perform. It is abundantly clear that the AO did not try to make any efforts to check the differences as gathered by him, or confront the assessee-appellant with the information, and accordingly the appellant was unable to defend itself before the AO. 4. The Learned Assessing Officer has made the addition with respect to credits standing in the name of M/s Press & Publicity Syndicate Pvt Ltd and M/s Milan Marine Services. As per the appellant these two parties were reputed parties. In the circumstances, I find me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and the reconciliation statement of the Sundry Creditors, I am of the view that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the impugned addition of Rs. 45,25,959/-. The same is hereby directed to be deleted." 3. Mr. S. Dasgupta, (Learned Addl. CIT-DR) vehemently contends that the Assessing Officer had rightly made the impugned addition since the assessee failed to prove unreconciled difference pertaining to M/s Press & Publicity Syndicate Pvt Ltd and M/s Milan Marine Services involving sums of Rs.44,04,736/- and Rs.1,21,223/-; respectively. He places reliance upon the said parties confirmation in this regard furnished to the Assessing Officer. We do not see any reason to accept Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... excluded from the computation of income. As dividend is exempt u/s.10(34) of the Act it needs to be deleted. In similar circumstances, in the immediately earlier year similar deduction was kindly allowed in appeal by the Learned. CIT(Appeals). As the omission is inadvertent, it needs to be corrected and deduction allowed.' 14. DECISION: 1.. As the submission of the appellant was by way of an dial ground, a copy of such additional ground was sent to the AO on 02.12.2015, requesting for his comments and observations, and objections if any. However, no communication or reply has been received from the AO in this matter, and the matter is decided accordingly. 2. It was submitted by the appellant received dividend of Rs. 7,25,760//- fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tful consideration to both the parties reiterating their respective stands in favour of and against the impugned disallowance. Scheudle-E14 (assessee's audited accounts) suggest that the impugned sums represented earlier assessment year's adjustment written off in the impugned assessment year as bad debts. Learned Departmental Representative fails to indicate any material in the case file suggesting that Assessing Officer had ever doubted genuineness of assessee's write off claim or that the same does not satisfy the relevant conditions envisaged in Section 36(1) & (2) of the Act. We accordingly affirm the CIT(A)'s appeal above extracted findings qua this latter issue as well. 6. This Revenue's appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
