2017 (12) TMI 1346

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d and unconfirmed advances from customers, when the assessee did not produce books of accounts before the Assessing Officer, Neither in the course of original assessment proceedings, nor in the course of remand proceedings. 2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case by deleting the addition of unverified and unconfirmed advances, when the assessee had failed to establish credit worthiness of the persons giving the advances and further failed to prove genuineness of the transaction. 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case by deleting the additions made on account of unverified advances simply relying on the affidavits of the creditors, which were never confronted to the d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... adjudicate the appeal accordingly. 3. The briefly stated facts of the case are that during relevant period, the assessee was engaged in construction and development of a commercial property. The assessee filed return of income on 31/10/2005 declaring income of Rs. 15,440/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') was issued on 16/10/2006 and sent through speed post, but it returned back unserved. Then the Assessing Officer served the notice on 30/10/2006 at the address of the assessee through affixture. The assessee did not comply with the said notice and subsequent statutory notices issued under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire. The A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the creditors. He further submitted that in the statements, creditors merely confirmed the purchase of the property. In view of the arguments, the Ld. Sr. DR requested to confirm the advances in question. 6. We have heard the submission of the Ld. senior DR and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Assessing Officer observed advance from customer of Rs. 44,62 000/-in the balance sheet and in absence of any details he made the addition. Before the learned CIT-(A) the assessee explained the reason of non-compliance of the various notices issued by the Assessing Officer. The assessee submitted that it purchased a plot of land in the year 2002 and constructed a commercial building on the said plot. After purchasing the plot....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Garg Rs. 3,00,000/- 8. Ms. Nidhi Garg Rs. 2,00,000/- 9  Smt. Kusum Lata Garg Rs.2,00,000/- 10. Sh. Jagdish Garg Rs. 2,00,000/- 11. Sh. O.P. Nangia Rs. 1,00,000/- 12. Sh. K.M. Sharma Rs. 1,00,000/- * 13. Sh. Mukesh Rs. 1,00,000/- 14 Sh. Sushil Sharma Rs, 1,50,000/- 15. Sh. N.C. Sharma Rs. 2,00,000/- 16. Shalini & Vikas Khosla Rs. 6,00,000/- 17. Shri Rafiq Rs. 4.00.000/-   Total Rs.44,62,000/- 7. The Ld. CIT-(A) forwarded the said list along with the submission of the assessee to the Ld. Assessing Officer calling for his remand report. During the remand proceeding, the assessee produced documents/affidavits from said customers. The Assessing Officer also deputed inspector and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....those could not be added in the year under consideration. 12. Out of the amount of Rs. 44,62,000/-, the learned CIT-(A) himself has held following credits amounting to Rs. 7,32,000/- as unexplained: Sl. No. Name  Amount Comments 1. Sh.Vipul Khandelwal 1,50,000/- No details 2. Dr. Rathore 1,82,000/- AO accept that Rs. 1,00,000/- was read during A.Y. 2004-05 3. Sh. K.M. Sharma 1,00,000/- Claim of this being open balance is not verifiable 4. Sh. Mukesh 1,00,000/- Claim of this being open balance is not verifiable. 5. Sh. N.C. Sharma  2,00,000/- Claim of this being open balance is not veriafiable.   Total  7,32,000/-   13. Since the assessee is not in appeal against the said....