TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 540X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions and the assessee has shown the net amount excluding the TDS and there was wrong credit in the name of Ms Chandni - HELD THAT:- Although the ld.CIT(A) has called for a remand report from the AO, this issue was not properly explained by the assessee during the remand proceedings to the AO nor the CIT(A) has considered the same properly in the light of the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel - we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to grant an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - ITA No.2829/Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 21-7-2020 - Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member And Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri D.C. Garg, CA For the Revenue : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24th March, 2017 of the CIT(A)-10, New Delhi, relating to assessment year 2010-11. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and is proprietor of M/s Reproduction, which is engaged in manufacture of furniture, trading in electric appara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... round No.4 being general in nature, is dismissed. 5. So far as Ground No.1 is concerned, the AO, during the course of assessment proceedings, observed from the confirmation furnished by the assessee in respect of M/s Gulab Farms Pvt. Ltd. that they have credited the following bills as on 31.03.2010:- i) Amount of bill No.259 and 260 ₹ 24,40,125/- ii) Amount of Bill No.269 ₹ 14,23,125/- Total ₹ 38,63,250 6. From the details submitted by th e assessee while reconciling the balance sheet, he noted that the assessee has claimed the difference as due to bill No.259 and 260 dated 12th May, 2010 and 269 dated 25th May, 2010 which have been accounted for by Gulab Farms Pvt. Ltd., on 31.03.2010. According to the AO, if the bills of the assessee were dated 12th May, 2010 and 15th May, 2010, how Gulab Farms Pvt. Ltd., should have entered them on 31.03.2010. This, according to the AO clearly shows that these amounts were not actually advance, but, the actual services/supplies were duly made by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24,40,125/- and Bill No. 269 of ₹ 14,23,125/- which have wrongly been accounted for by M/s Gulab Farms P. Ltd. for the period 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010 which in fact related to sales made in the subsequent financial year i.e. on 12.05.2010 and 25.05.2010, but the fact cannot be denied that even if this version of the appellant is accepted, there is difference in the opening balance as on 01.04.2009 which as per ledger account of M/s. Gulab Farms P. Ltd. in the books of the assessee is ₹ 45,50,280/-, whereas in the remand proceedings, vide letter dt.12.05.2016, the same has been reported by M/s. Gulab Firms P. Ltd. in its books as ₹ 66,40,280/-. Needless to mention here that even during the assessment stage vide letter dt.21.03.2013, a copy of ledger of the appellant was provided in the books of M/s Gulab Farms Pvt. Ltd. wherein too the opening balance as on 01.04.2009 was shown at ₹ 66,40,280/-. Considering these facts in view, the submissions of the appellant do not found to be in consistent with the documentary evidence available on record. In view of these facts, I am inclined to agree with the comments of the Assessing Officer that the veracity of ledger ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited in the bank on 2nd April, 2010. He submitted that it is clear from the above that M/s Gulab Farms issued a cheque No.506703 for ₹ 20,90,000/- on 31.03.2010 which was accounted for on the same day by them whereas it was accounted for in the assessee s books when it was received. He submitted that merely because a receipt was accounted for in the next accounting year, it can never be treated as unexplained credit. He accordingly submitted that the addition made should be deleted. 10. The ld. DR, on the other hand, while supporting the order of the AO and the CIT(A) submitted that this requires verification at the level of AO since the assesseee had never reconciled the difference in the opening balance either before the AO or ld. CIT(A). He accordingly submitted that he has no objection if the issue is restored to the file of the AO. 11. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the authorities below and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We find, although the ld.CIT(A) has deleted the addition of ₹ 38,63,250/-, he directed the AO to make an addition of ₹ 20,90,000/- being the difference in the opening ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 10,00,000/-. However, during the appellate proceedings, Ld. AR has filed a certificate from M/s. V.C. Solutions P. Ltd. wherein it has been certified that there is debit balance of ₹ 34,94,435/- as on 31.03.2010 whereas in the ledger account provided by the appellant, the balance of M/s. V.C. Solutions P. Ltd. has been shown at ₹ 29,72,500/-. Hence, there is a difference of ₹ 5,21,935/-, which is in the nature of unexplained credit, which has not been shown in the books of account by the appellant. Therefore, the same is treated as income of the assessee for the year under consideration. 13. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 14. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts correctly. He submitted that it is correct that balance on 31.03.2010 as appearing in the certificate and ledger provided by M/s VC Solutions is ₹ 34,94,435/- which is verifiable from page 27 and 28 of the paper book. Referring to ledger of VC Solutions in the books of the assessee, copy of which is placed at page 29 of the paper book, he submitted that the assessee has received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
