TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reditors on account of booking or allotment or sales of units/flats. Therefore, CIT(A) was right in holding that without any concrete material or evidence showing unexplained or unaccounted income of the assessee introduced in the cover of sundry creditors, the addition made by the AO merely on the basis of suspicion, presumption and assumption cannot be held as sustainable - addition/disallowance made on the basis of presumption and assumption is not sustainable and correct in view of the absence of concrete and sustainable allegation and evidence or adverse material against the assessee. Unexplained bank deposit - HELD THAT:- The amounts added and assessed as unexplained sundry creditors includes the impugned amount which was deposited to the three bank accounts of the assessee therefore, the same cannot be treated as unexplained bank deposits in absence of any adverse or positive incriminating evidence or material. Thus, we are inclined to hold that the findings recorded by the CIT(A) are quite correct and we are unable to see any valid reason to interfere with the same and hence, we uphold the same. No substantial question of law. - R/TAX APPEAL NO. 131 of 2019 - - - Dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessee pertaining to the said project. The ld. AR also submitted that the expenses incurred has been shown as working progress in the books of accounts and balance sheet became the construction activity have been carried out from present year to subsequent years. The ld. AR also drew our attention towards Page 3 to 5 of assessee s paper book (APB) and submitted that all required details and supporting evidence along with relevant copies of the sample bills, vouchers and contra accounts of important expenses were submitted before the authorities below. The ld. AR submitted that ld. CIT(A) issued notices to some creditors and called for confirmation and after considering the entire facts and circumstances deleted the major part of addition by partly allowing the grounds of the assessee in this regard but restricted the disallowance to 30% of total claimed amount i.e. ₹ 11,27,363/- without any justified reason and basis therefore, the entire disallowance/addition made by the AO may kindly be deleted. The ld. AR has also placed reliance on the decision of ITAT, Allahabad in the case of JCIT vs. Mathura Das Ashok Kumar reported in 101 TTJ 810 (All.) and order of ITAT, Hyde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sis cannot be disallowed therefore, entire claim of the assessee may kindly be allowed. 4. So far as the second proposed question of law with regard to deleting the addition of ₹ 1,34,64,887/- made on account of bogus Sundry Creditors is concerned, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are as under : Apropos this ground, we have heard the arguments of both sides and carefully perused the material available on the record of the Tribunal. The ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)-II, Rajkot has erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,34,64,877/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged sundry creditors proved bogus. Supporting the assessment order, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee has not produced any books of accounts and therefore, any claim made by the assessee remains unexplained, the AO requested the assessee to produce relevant persons/sundry creditors to produce in support of her claim but the assessee has not produced even a single creditor to support the claim. Therefore, the AO was right in disallowing the entire amount of sundry creditors shown by the assessee in the balan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng unexplained or unaccounted income of the assessee introduced in the cover of sundry creditors, the addition made by the AO merely on the basis of suspicion, presumption and assumption cannot be held as sustainable. At the same time, it is relevant to note that from para 3 of the impugned order, we observe that the ld. CIT(A) has called the assessee to submit all the details of transaction with each and every creditor which was submitted by the assessee and reproduced by the ld. first appellate authority in para (c) at pages 6 to 11 of the first appellate order. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) issued notices u/s. 133(6) of the Act to nine major parties/sundry creditors and all the parties replied to the notice and copies of their replies were verified by the ld. CIT(A) in the subsequent paras of impugned order, which shows the exercise and examination undertaken by the ld. CIT(A) before granting relief to the assessee. In the last operative of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) referred to the ratio of the decision of Hon ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Navendram Ahuja (supra) and thereafter, recorded as finding that the additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
