TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 120
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3(1)/VSP/2012-13 dated 27.03.2013 for the assessment year 2007-08. 2. The Revenue has raised four grounds in the appeal. Ground Nos.1 and 4 are general in nature which does not require specific adjudication. 3. Ground No.2 is related to the addition of sundry creditors amounting to Rs. 4,44,30,750/- in the name of Tolia Overseas Pvt. Ltd and Ground No.3 is related to the addition of Rs. 1,21,82,232/-. 4. The assessee company is engaged in the business of trading in minerals like coal, iron ore, rock phosphate and sulpuhr, filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 29,89,471/- . The case was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer (AO) called for various details incl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vant to the assessment year 2007-08 and accounted by the assessee in the same year, whereas the creditor has accounted the sale transaction in the subsequent assessment year. The AO did not believe the purchase transactions and on the basis of confirmation letter the difference amount of Rs. 4,44,30,750/- brought to tax u/s 41(1) of the Income Tax Act. 5.1. The assessee had shown outstanding sundry creditors of Rs. 19,64,12,823/- and furnished the confirmation letters in respect of M/s Bhatia International Ltd. for Rs. 12,41,45,172/- and Rs. 46,25,000/- in respect of Tolia Overseas Pvt. Ltd. However, the AO made the addition of Rs. 7,22,67,651/- without furnishing any details or the break up. The AO treated the liability ceased to have b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was no evidence to establish the same and it was accounted by the vendor on 23.04.2007 in the subsequent assessment year. The assessee has shown the liability of Rs. 4,44,30,750/-, and there is no evidence to establish the same, hence, argued that the AO has rightly made the addition which required to be upheld. With regard to the balance addition the Ld.DR argued that the assessee had neither furnished the confirmations nor produced the books of accounts, hence the AO has no other alternative except to disbelieve the outstand credits hence submitted that The AO has rightly made the addition which required to be upheld. 8. On the other hand, Ld.AR argued that the assessee has made the purchases of Rs. 4,44,30,750/- on 26.03.2007 and du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,669/- 8.1. The Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the amount of Rs. 1,56,54,669/- for which no confirmation was filed by the assessee. The Ld.AR argued that the assessee has furnished the entire details before the Ld.CIT(A) and addition should not have been confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) u/s 41(1) of I.T.Act. Further, the Ld.AR argued that when the income is estimated on gross sales no further addition required to be made u/s 41(1) of I.T.Act. and according to the Ld.AR the addition confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) required to be deleted. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In this case, the AO made the addition of Rs. 7,22,67,650/- relating to the sundry creditors for purchases. Out of the amount of Rs. 7,22,67,6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the stock, it was accounted in the financial year itself, and further as it was billed it was not disclosed as stock. However the AO did not accept the explanation and made the addition as follows : Sundry Creditors Rs.19,64,12,823/- (-) Bhatia Intl. Rs.12,41,45,172/- (-) Tolia Overseas Ltd. Rs. 46,25,000/- Rs.7,22,67,650/- A sum of Rs. 7,22,67,650/- was added to the total income u/s.41(1) of the I.T.Act During the appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted the positions as follows. Sundry creditors for purchase & others Rs.20,64,12,823/- (-) Bhatia Intl. Rs.12,41,45,172/- (-) Tolia Overseas Ltd. Rs. 4,90,55,750/- To be explained Rs.3,32,11,900/- Relating to capital g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ld.DR. there was difference in the quantum. The CIT(A) worked out the difference at Rs. 3,32,11,900/-whereas as per AO it worked out to Rs. 2,78,36,901/-. Purchase of capital goods was first taken up by the assessee before CIT(A) but the same was not explained before the AO and not considered by the AO. All the above difference and issues required to be verified from the assessee's books of accounts and to be cross verified from the creditors books of accounts which exercise was not done by the AO because of non cooperation from the assessee. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the entire issue needs to be remitted back to the file of AO to make the detailed verification and decide the issue a fresh on merits. Accordingly we re....