AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 87
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rges without appreciating the reasons of disallowance given by the AO. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of sundry creditors balance of Rs. 17,17,247/- stating that the Appellant By Shri Naveen Gupta Respondent By Shri Paresh Shaparia Date of hearing 03.09.2015 Date of pronouncement 06.01.2016 AO's conclusion was simply based on partial appreciation of the facts of the case without appreciating the full facts given by the AO. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition u/s.68 as unexplained cash credits for unsecured loans of Rs. 22,70,086/- without appreciating the facts that loans were not fully proved to be genuine. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch the verification could have been made by the AO. 2.2 The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) had erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 6,02,595/- being 20% of the total labour and processing charges as only ledger copies in respect of the said expenditure were produced by the assessee and it was not possible for the Revenue to carry out further verification. The Ld. AR on the other hand submitted that the payments on account of labour charges were made to the 3 parties namely, Raj Print N Pack of Rs. 28,18,624/-, D'Souza Metal Cutting P. Ltd. Rs. 1,10,062/-, and Jain Packaging P. Ltd. Rs. 84,287/-. The payments were made after deduction of TDS and the necessary return of TDS were also filed. All these payments were made by cheques and,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of Rs. 17,17,247/-. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee's balance-sheet contained Rs. 17,17,247/- as sundry creditor outstanding as on 31.03.2009. The AO asked the assessee to furnish the details of names, addresses, confirmations and analysis of the sundry creditors. The AO added the entire amount of sundry creditors to the income of the assessee on the ground that assessee did not furnish the names and addresses and supporting bills of these creditors to the income of the assesse and, therefore, the necessary enquiry u/s 133(6) or summon u/s 131 could not be issued. The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 17,17,247/- by observing that the basis of AO to add sundry creditor was incorrect and AO failed to consider the submissions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndings of the AO, addition of Rs. 17,17,244/- was rightly deleted by the CIT(A) and the order of CIT(A) be upheld on this point. 3.4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the AO added the entire amount of Sundry Creditors of Rs. 17,17,244/-on the ground that the assessee did not furnish the names and addresses of the Sundry Creditors and, therefore, the necessary verification could not be carried out. However, the ld. CIT(A) observed the necessary details, had been filed by the assessee vide letter dated 16.11.2011 in paragraph 4 & 5 whereby the party- wise sundry creditors and also the details of all the purchases above Rs. 50,000/- were furnished with the names and addresses. The ld. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der that all the sundry creditors and loans related to earlier year, and only interest on these loans were provided for relating to the current year after deduction of applicable TDS. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that all these information were available before the AO in the Tax Audit Report forming part of 3 CD which was part of return of income of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) reversed the order of AO on the ground that the addition of Rs. 22,70,086/- u/s 68 of the Act could not be made as all these amounts were borrowed in the earlier years and not during the year under consideration and therefore the provisions of section 68 of the Act were not applicable . 4.1. The ld. DR relied on the order of AO and submitted that the assessee did....