TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1543
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'the Act'. 2. The Revenue raises two substantive grounds in the instant appeal. Its first grievance is that CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in reversing the Assessing Officer's action adding unreconciled sundry credit amount of Rs.45,25,959/- made in the course of assessment. We notice that CIT(A)'s detailed discussion on the instant issue reads as under:- "In summary, Ground No 2 stands adjudicated against the appellant. 07. Ground No.3 [a, b & c]: This ground is related to the addition by the AO of Rs. 45,25,959/- on account of 'Disallowance of expenditure regarding sundry creditors'. This issue has been dealt by the AO in assessment order as under:- 'The assessee company has shown sundry creditor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmed by the creditors and that stated in the books of account of the Ape. It is submitted that the accounts of the appellant are subject to statutory audit under the Companies Act 1956, Tax Audit u/s. 44AB of Income Tax Act and mandatory audit of the CAG, the Appellant being a Government company. In none of these three audits, any discrepancy in the Sundry Creditor's account has been found or mentioned. The confirmations have been obtained without any reference to the Appellant. Besides, the discrepancies were explained with adequate evidence. There is no mention of thee Reconciliation statements filed by the Appellant. (Annexure C). On the basis of such perfunctory scrutiny and suspicion without any substance, the AO has made such....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it appears that he has invoked the provisions of Sec 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It has to be observed that in the context of the provisions of section 68, it would not be out of place to mention that one has to keep in mind the legal maxim lex non cogitad impossibila which means the law does not compel any person to do that which he cannot possibly perform. It is abundantly clear that the AO did not try to make any efforts to check the differences as gathered by him, or confront the assessee-appellant with the information, and accordingly the appellant was unable to defend itself before the AO. 4. The Learned Assessing Officer has made the addition with respect to credits standing in the name of M/s Press & Publicity Syndicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the principles of natural justice, weakening the assessment procedure and in the process rendering the order bad in law. 7. Having regard to the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and the reconciliation statement of the Sundry Creditors, I am of the view that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the impugned addition of Rs. 45,25,959/-. The same is hereby directed to be deleted." 3. Mr. S. Dasgupta, (Learned Addl. CIT-DR) vehemently contends that the Assessing Officer had rightly made the impugned addition since the assessee failed to prove unreconciled difference pertaining to M/s Press & Publicity Syndicate Pvt Ltd and M/s Milan Marine Services involving sums of Rs.44,04,736/- and Rs.1,21,223/-; respec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the audited accounts submitted herewith) during the year. Due to ignorance of the person who prepared the details for filing the Return of Income this amount was not excluded from the computation of income. As dividend is exempt u/s.10(34) of the Act it needs to be deleted. In similar circumstances, in the immediately earlier year similar deduction was kindly allowed in appeal by the Learned. CIT(Appeals). As the omission is inadvertent, it needs to be corrected and deduction allowed.' 14. DECISION: 1.. As the submission of the appellant was by way of an dial ground, a copy of such additional ground was sent to the AO on 02.12.2015, requesting for his comments and observations, and objections if any. However, no c....