TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt. Limited from the assessee. The assessee thus has failed to establish the existence of the said liability and having regard to all the facts of the case said liability can be treated as ceased to have existed. Therefore, find no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue confirming the addition made by the AO. Un-reconciled difference in the account of certain sundry creditors and debtors - HELD THAT:- Difference in the closing balance of M/s. Life Drug House Pvt. Limited and M/s. Indchemie Health Specialities Pvt. Limited was satisfactorily explained by the assessee and the said explanation was duly accepted by the AO after verification of the relevant record. Regarding the differ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9.2015 declaring total income at NIL . In the balance-sheet filed along with the said return, unsecured loan of ₹ 2,29,065/- taken from Standard Chartered Bank was shown by the assessee. In response to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 133(6) of the Act, the Standard Chartered Bank, however, confirmed the outstanding balance payable by the assessee at ₹ 62,330/-. Since the assessee could not explain this difference of ₹ 1,66,735/-, the Assessing Officer treated the same as the bogus liability and an addition of ₹ 1,66,735/- was made by him to the total income of the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the said addition made by the Assessing Officer as the assessee failed to rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Assessing Officer. Ground No. 1 is accordingly dismissed. 5. The issue raised in Ground No. 2 relates to the addition of ₹ 8,26,139/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on account of un-reconciled difference in the account of certain sundry creditors and debtors. 6. As noticed by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings from the replies received to the notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act, there was a total difference of ₹ 8,26,139/- in the closing balance of the following parties:- (1) M/s. Life Drug House Pvt. Limited ₹ 2,33,954/- (2) M/s. Indchemie Healt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erence and in the remand report submitted to the ld. CIT(Appeals), the following comments were made by the Assessing Officer:- Difference in closing balance of sundry creditors and debtors: (A) M/s. Life Drug House Pvt. Limited:_ Closing balance difference of ₹ 2,33,954/-. On perusal of reconciliation statement and further verification from bank statements, it was found that, the different cheques of the said amount were debited form the assessee account on 04.04.2015 and further dates. It appears that cheques were issued by the assessee in April, 2015, because it takes only one or two days to clear the cheques from the bank, though the party has shown the cheques being received in FY 2014-15. Hence the difference in account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, I am of the view that the difference in the closing balance of the concerned parties to the extent of ₹ 7,49,184/- was satisfactorily explained by the assessee and the ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer on this issue to that extent. I, therefore, modify the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue and restrict the addition of ₹ 8,26,139/- made by the Assessing Officer to ₹ 76,955/-. Ground No. 2 of the assessee s appeal is thus partly allowed. 9. At the time of hearing before the Tribunal, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has not pressed Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee in this appeal involving the issue of addition of ₹ 33,408/- made by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
