9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1961. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment. During the year assessee-company is engaged in the business of providing software development and information technology enabled services. The assessee filed the details before Assessing Officer time to time. The Assessing Officer in this case issued notice under section 133(6) to 7 creditors of the assessee for confirmation of the balances. The details of the same is noted at page-2 of the assessment order, in which, the Assessing Officer noted that either the creditors have not filed any reply or the letters under section 133(6) remained undelivered, no confirmation/reply filed. Thus, the difference in the amount of sundry creditors was found in a sum of Rs. 32,47,203/-. The Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfirmation. In the case of M/s. Tanisha Travels Tradelinks, the ITR acknowledgement and confirmation was provided. However, addition of Rs. 2,65,865/- was made because of the differences in the amount, for which, no confirmation have been filed. In the case of Ms. Jayashree Dutta, assessee was informed that letter sent to her have returned back undelivered. The confirmation does not tally figures. The Ld. CIT(A) gone through the paper book filed by assessee in detail and noted that in cases of M/s. Tanisha Travels Tradelinks and M/s. Infor Global Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd., there was no sufficient time to send the notice to them, therefore, additional evidence was were admitted. The Ld. CIT(A) on going through the details and remand report o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tors to whom the assessee later on paid the amount in question through banking channel. Therefore, no addition could be made. In support of the above contention, he has relied upon decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Devsons (P) Ltd., vs. CIT 329 ITR 483 (Del.) and Order of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Smt. Sudha Loyalka vs. ITO 97 taxmann.com 303 (Delhi-Tribu.). 5. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below and submitted that assessee has not even filed the confirmation from the creditors, therefore, addition was rightly made against the assessee. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. The Assessing Officer made the addition on account of difference in the amounts in respect of 7 cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, invoices, TDS certificate etc., were produced on record, which justifies that the creditor did some services for assessee, for which, the amount in question was shown as unpaid credit in the books of account of the assessee. It also appears that Assessing Officer has not verified if there was some closing balance coming up from earlier years. According to assessee, the amount in question have been repaid by assessee in subsequent year through banking channel which fact also need verification. It, therefore, appears that the documentary evidences filed on record have not been appreciated by the authorities below and that Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate upon the issue on merits, therefore, the matter requires reconsideration at the level of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
