TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (7) TMI 616
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce in spite of the objection raised by the Assessing Officer in remand report dated 11.2.2011 that the confirmations filed by the appellant before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) were incomplete, lacking address and PA Number as also the Assessing Officer had doubted the sales claimed to have been made to the parties in the F.Y. 2009-10, since there was no occasion for the Assessing Officer to examine the sales of the assessee for F.Y. 2009-10. ii) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of a total amount of Rs. 8,06,805/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained cash credits under section 69 of Income Tax Act, 1961 without cogent reasons in accepting the additional evidences field before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) were incomplete, lacking address and PA Number and were accepted in violation of Rule 46A(3) of Income Tax Rules, 1962 and the payment received though cheques cannot make cash credits as genuine and unexplained. iii) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the additi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that debit note was pending - Rs. 1,300/-. 6) M/s Chetan Enterprises, as the party denied that any balance was outstanding in its books of account - Rs. 6,20,317/-. 7) M/s Dwarka International, as no confirmation was filed and notice was returned unserved - Rs. 1,90,328/-. 8) M/s Raj Metal Store, as the appellant's claim that advance was received, but returned in later year was not supported by bank details - Rs. 1,00,000/-. 9) M/s Swastik Foundry and Engineering Works, as the appellant failed to file confirmation - Rs. 19,757/-. 10)M/s Vikas Industries, as appellant's claim that debit note was pending for poor material was not supported by evidence - Rs. 83,088/-. 11)M/s Asia Metal - Rs. 1,72,720/-. 12)M/s B.K. Foundry Works - Rs. 1,03,000/-. 13)M/s Super Castings - Rs. 1,15,728/- In the above three cases, the assessee claimed it had received advances for supply of material, which were returned in later years, but could not prove its case. 14)M/s Hitech Enterprises - Rs. 10,60,156/-. 15)M/s Shree Kripa Electrical and Engineering Co. - Rs. 7,46,000/-. In the above 2 cases, the confirmations filed did not have PAN or address. 4. Before the Ld.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is amount was then repaid in the F.Y. 2008-09. The party has provided a confirmation of the account. 4) M/s Vikas Industries - The amount of Rs. 83,088/- has remained outstanding from 1.4.2006 till the end of the year. It was repaid in the F.Y. 2008-09. This account has been confirmed by the party. 5) M/s B.K. Foundry Works - The credit balance of Rs. 57,135/- was outstanding on 1.4.2006. The appellant has had regular business dealings with this party from prior to 1.4.2004, and the amount outstanding on 1.4.2006 had been received by cheque in the F.Y. 2005-06. The additions made of the above amounts, representing opening balances of a total amount of Rs. 20,06,556/-, cannot be sustained in the A.Y. 2007-08 as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68. Moreover, examination of the earlier year's accounts show regular business dealings. Hence the addition of Rs. 20,06,556/- is deleted." 4.2 Of the balance amount, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noted that assessee has furnished the confirmations of the following parties:- 1) M/s Chander Metal Store - Rs. 2,00,000/- 2) M/s Raj Metal Store - Rs. 1,00,000/- 3) M/s Swastik Foundry - Rs. 19,757/- 4) M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Baldev Krishan Kapoor vs. ACIT 66 ITD 37 (TM). 6.2 Ld. counsel further placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide decision dated 23.12.2011 in the case of C.I.T. vs. Vardhman Overseas Ltd.. In this case the Hon'ble High Court has confirmed the ITAT decision to the effect that addition u/s. 68 cannot be made when there are no fresh cash credits received during the year from sundry creditors and section 41(1) and section 28(iv) cannot be invoked to subject to tax the outstanding balances of sundry creditors. 6.3 We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. We agree with the finding of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from submitting the evidences during the assessment proceedings. Furthermore, we agree with the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that addition could not have been made u/s. 68 of those amounts which appear as opening balances on 1.4.2006. In this regard, the case laws cited by the ld. counsel of the assessee also support the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Hence, in our considered opinion, there is no infirmity in the order of ....