TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the sundry Creditor Shivalik Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. - decided against revenue Difference in the sale account of Shivalik Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. - confirmation of account received from M/s Shivalik Vyapar Pvt. Ltd there was a closing balance at ₹ 68,28,938/- whereas NIL balance was appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee - Held that:- CIT(A) deleted this addition after detailed examination of the fact that the alleged balance was on account of Bank of Baroda LC which was issued by M/s Shivalik Vyapar Pvt. Ltd for purchasing goods from the assessee and the alleged amount is merely a journal entry through which the alleged amount has been credited in the books of M/s Shivalik Vyapar Pvt. Ltd and corresponding debit to Bank of Baroda LC account which is balance payable by M/s Shivalik Vyapar Pvt. Ltd to the bank. In fact there is no balance amount receivable by the assessee from M/s Shivalik Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. The above findings of CIT(A) has not been controverted by Ld. Departmental Representative and the fact emanating out of this finding are duly verifiable with the copy of ledger account placed - no inconsistency in the findings of Ld.CIT(A) deleting the addition. Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 23,573/- in respect of sundry creditors. 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 68,28,938/-. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) was justified in accepting additional evidence and explanations of assessee without following Rule 16A and not calling for remand report of the AO in respect of issues at ground No.1 and 2. 4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made on account of profit estimated by A.O. I.T.A. No.234/Ind/2017 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 2,83,24,079 on account of creditors. 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 38,49,923/- on account of creditors. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) was justified in not allowing the provision of Rule 46A and not calling for remand report of the AO before relying on addition evidences produced for creditors. 4. Whether in the facts and ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowing manner; 5. This ground of appeal is against the addition of ₹ 2,39,32,988/on account of M/ s Shivalik Vyapar Pvt Ltd. I have gone through the assessment order and the reasons for making the additions. The AO has made the addition at page 2 para 5 on the ground that the assessee has not furnished confirmation from the creditor, M/ s Shivalik Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, credits in its name amounting to ₹ 2,39,33,988/- have been added to the total income u/s 68. It has been submitted by the appellant that he had filed the copy of account of M/ s Shivalik Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. The AO in para 2 of the Assessment Order has mentioned, that he had called the information u/ s 133(6) and the appellant had furnished three separate accounts showing three different balances. It has been submitted by the appellant that the party had sent three accounts, one in respect of the consignment sales, the another in respect of the purchases made from the assessee and the third account in the name of Harison Investor Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. It has been further stated that in the ledger account of Hari Sons Secunderbad, a debit balance has been shown at ₹ 2,39,10,415/- whereas as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,28,938/- was made by Ld.A.O on observing that as per the confirmation of account received from M/s Shivalik Vyapar Pvt. Ltd there was a closing balance at ₹ 68,28,938/- whereas NIL balance was appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee. 15. We find that Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition of ₹ 68,28,938/- observing as follows; 6. This ground of appeal is against the addition of ₹ 68,28,938/- for the difference in the sale account of Shivalik Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. I have gone through the assessment order as well as the reasons for making the additions. The AO has made the addition of ₹ 68,28,938/- on the ground that there is a difference in the sale account of Shivalik. The appellant's relevant submission in this regard IS being reproduced as below:- We are also selling the goods to Shivalik and a separate account is maintained for the sale by the assessee and also by Shivalik For the sales, the assessee supplies the goods against the LC The assessee raises the bill in their name against the LC and it receives bill to bill payment through bank against the LC Thus, no balance is shown by the assessee. While confirming the account, M/ s Shivalik ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of additional evidence without following rule 46A of the I.T Act and not calling for remand report of the A.O needs to be dismissed in the given facts where it is proved beyond doubt that all the necessary details were directly called for by Ld.A.O from the alleged sundry creditors by issuing notice u/s 133(6) of the Act which were duly complied. We accordingly dismiss Ground No.3 of revenue s appeal. 20. Ground No.4 is general in nature which needs no adjudication and we accordingly dismiss the same. 21. Now we take up I.T.A. No.234/Ind/2017 in the case of Shri Prince Paryani wherein similar types of grounds have been taken. Both the parties have accepted before us that the facts and the issues remains the same in the case of Shri Prince Paryani similar to those dealt by us in the case of Kishore Hariram Paryani (HUF) (ITA No.233/Ind/2013). We will first take up Ground No.1 which reads as follows; 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 2,83,24,079 on account of creditors. 22. There seems to be a typographical error in the ground raised by revenue as the correct figure of addition relatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny of the supporting documents so filed by the appellant and find that the claim made by the appellant is correct. Based on the detailed examination of the facts of the case, I hereby delete the addition of Rs..2,44,74,156 / -. This ground of appeal is allowed . 24. The above finding of fact given by Ld.CIT(A) has not been controverted by Ld. Departmental Representative and it is duly discernable from the records that Ld. A.O though was having necessary conformation of account received from M/s. Shivalik Vyapar Pvt. Ltd in his records called by him under the information u/s 136(6) of the Act, but it seems that due to inadvertence he ignored the same which lead to the alleged addition, which has been rightly deleted by Ld.CIT(A). No interference is therefore called for in the finding of Ld.CIT(A) deleting the addition of ₹ 2,44,74,156/-. We accordingly dismiss Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue. 25. Now we will take up Ground No.2 which reads as follows; 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 38,49,923/- on account of creditors. . 26. Brief facts relating to the case is that Ld. A.O made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
