TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th them had been undertaken wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business activities. We note assessee's accounts are audited and not rejected by the AO therefore to estimate the separate profit in addition to profit shown in the audited books of accounts is not tenable without any tangible material or corroborative evidence. We note that since the assessment year under consideration is 2014-15 therefore furnishing of PAN number is not mandatory as per Rule 115B of the Income Tax Rules, vide entry No. 18, which came into force with effect from 1stJanuary, 2016. Based on the factual position,as narrated above, we are of the view that the assessee has proved the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the creditors, therefore we delete the addition. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.104/Gau/2019 - - - Dated:- 17-6-2020 - Shri A. T. Varkey, JM And Dr. A.L. Saini, AM For the Assessee : Shri Sanjay Modi, FCA For the Respondent : Shri M.K. Dal, Addl. CIT, Sr. Dr ORDER PER DR. A. L. SAINI: The captioned appeal filed by the Assessee pertaining to assessment year 2014-15, is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of claim of the assessee, issued notices under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to 60 (sixty) persons on 18.04.2016, with a request to furnish the ledger account in respect of the assessee Shri Bijan Kalita maintained in their books. Further, summons under section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were issued on 01.12.2016 to three sundry creditors namely: (i) Shri Nayanmoni Das, (ii) Shri Jagadish Das and (iii) Shri Shankarlal Agarwal requiring their personal appearance before the assessing officer and to give evidence and to produce required documents such as copy of PAN card, copy of the income tax return, along with income and expenditure account, balance sheet, bank passbook etc. In compliance to the summon issued under section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Shri Nayanmoni Das, Shri Jagadish Das and Shri Shankarlal Agarwal appeared before the assessing officer on 08.12.2016 and 09.12.2016. As regard information requisitioned under section 133(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961, the assessing officer had received all the replies form the concerned sundry creditors to whom requisition was made under the above section. 6. While scrutinizing the confirmations received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s well as assessing officer have already verified these creditors in the preceding previous years therefore genuineness of these creditors should not be doubted. Besides, in response to notice under section 131 of the Act, some creditors personally appeared before the assessing officer and submitted the required documents. The creditors also made the compliances of the notice under section 133(6) of the Act and submitted the required details and documents before the assessing officer, therefore addition made by assessing officer may be deleted. Per contra, ld DR for the Revenue submitted that assessee has failed to furnish the PAN number of the seven individuals (creditors). The assessee neither could offer any satisfactory explanation nor could furnish any evidences to establish the genuineness of the creditors. Therefore, the addition made by AO to the tune of ₹ 60,45,315/- may be sustained. 10.We note that summons under section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were issued by the assessing officer on 01.12.2016 to three sundry creditors namely: (i) Shri Nayanmoni Das, (ii) Shri Jagadish Das and (iii) Shri Shankarlal Agarwal requiring their personal appearance before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Basanti Devi 9,41,775/- 03 Mithu Sharma 8,34,850/- 04 Mantia Das 9,52,550/- 05 Rantu Sharma 8,18,800/- 06 Kanak Baishya 8,85,210/- 07 Gopla Das 9,88,070/- 08 Subhash Biswas 7,85,970/- 09 Utpal Kumar Das 8,22,050/- 10 Daljit Singh 8,92,995/- 11 BirenKalita 12,02,626/- 12 Aparna Kalita 9,89,824/- 13 Sunil Sharma 8,55,987/- 14 Ratan Sharma 8,76,960/- 15 Niyajit Namasudra 9,16,522/- 16 Sanjay Sangma 7,73,450/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the balance creditors pertain to the assessment year under consideration is only at ₹ 76,030/- (₹ 60,45,315-₹ 59,69,285). The creditors which is coming from the preceding previous year has already been examined by the assessing officer in the scrutiny assessment of preceding previous years, besides the assessee`s accounts are subject to tax audit and auditor has certified the balance sheet of the assessee, hence genuineness of the creditors should not be doubted. So far balance creditors of ₹ 76,030/- is concerned, we note that all creditors responded the notice under section 131 of the Act. In addition to this, all creditors filed the confirmations and required documents in response to notice under section 133(6) of the Act therefore the genuineness of the balance creditors should not be doubted. 13. We note that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer has recorded the statement of three creditors u/s 131 of the Act, however, he failed to bring any cogent evidence on record to demonstrate that assessee`s creditors are bogus. We note that statement is a good evidence provided it is supported by any tangible material or corroborate ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed before the assessing officer the requisite details and documents as called for by summon issued under section 131 of the Act. The assessing officer failed to demonstrate any defect in the documents and evidences adduced before him by these creditors. Out of total creditors of ₹ 60,45,315/- which were alleged by the AO to be not genuine, as sum of ₹ 59,69,285/- pertain to preceding previous years which have been verified by the AO in the preceding previous years, therefore genuineness of these creditors should not be doubted. All the creditors of the assessee are his regular vendors and transactions with them are genuine business transactions and these transactions with them had been undertaken wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business activities. We note assessee's accounts are audited and not rejected by the Assessing Officer therefore to estimate the separate profit in addition to profit shown in the audited books of accounts is not tenable without any tangible material or corroborative evidence. We note that since the assessment year under consideration is 2014-15 therefore furnishing of PAN number is not mandatory as per Rule 115B of the Inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
