2012 (9) TMI 655

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nsel for the assessee, therefore, these are dismissed as not pressed. 3. The next ground i.e. ground no. 3.1 and 3.2 are that the learned first appellate authority erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.2,77,943/- on account of non-disclosure of receipts and further not considering the evidences filed before the learned first appellate authority. The crux of arguments on behalf of the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) gave incorrect finding that the receipts shown as contract receipts were not disclosed in profit and loss account and even the learned Assessing Officer considered these receipts as reimbursement of contract receipts and unjustifiably held them as unaccounted without verifying the fact that these were reflected as credit in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 4.1 and 4.2 raised is that the learned first appellate authority erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,98,251/- without considering the evidences so filed. The crux of arguments is that the assessee firm was having opening balance of Rs. 13,15,955/- as on 31.3.2006 of sundry creditors including debtors and the entire list of 31 sundry creditors in Schedule-C in the balance sheet (as on 31.3.2007) is exactly the same as on 31.3.2006 except the small amount of Rs.1283/- which relates to Kamakhya Cosmatics. It was explained that these sundry creditors were owing to the trading activities with the assessee firm, carried out until the end of the preceding year. The ld. Counsel for the assessee invited our attention to paper book pages 11 a....