TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 1419
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in law and may kindly be ordered to be quashed. 2. In conforming the order of the AO the Ld. CIT (A)'s chose to ignore or rather failed to completely appreciate the fact that the sundry creditors are duly proved and that all the supporting documents including confirmations etc. are duly available on record and thus as the addition is made without any basis only on whims and fancies the same may be ordered to be deleted. 3. On the facts and in the peculiar circumstances of the present case the Ld. CIT (A)'s grossly erred on facts in conforming the addition of Rs. 1,06,88,435/- by ignoring the fact that all the balances are duly reconciled and that the AO nor the Ld. CIT (A)'s allowed sufficient time and opportunity to the appellant Co. to produce the evidences or the creditors before him as the query was raised towards the fag end of the limitation period and thus the order so passed and addition made against the settled principles of law and against natural justice and fairplay is void-ab--initio and thus the addition should be ordered to be deleted. 2. The limited issue in this appeal is the confirmation of addition of Rs. 1,06,88,435/- to the ret....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... u/s 133 (6) on 28/10/2016 to all creditors on the addresses given by the assessee. It is evident from the order of the Assessing Officer that all the notices under section 133(6) were served to the creditors and none of them were returned back with the postal remark unserved; meaning thereby that in the given addresses provided by the assessee, concerned creditors were there and addresses were genuine. However, it is the contention of the Assessing Officer, as appearing in his order, that so far as confirmation is concerned, the same was received only from one creditor, M/s Guru Kripa Transport Corporation. Assessing Officer in his order observed that none of the creditors attended nor any written submission was filed by any of the other creditor and Assessing Officer has constantly asked the assessee to produce all the creditors. Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,06,88,435/- on the entire amount of sundry creditors, since there was no response nor any confirmation was filed on the notices issued by the Assessing Officer under section 133(6) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved with regard to the said addition, assessee took the matter before the ld. CIT(A). Before ld. CIT(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tors and entire copy of confirmation were filed as additional evidences. Rule 46A which states regarding admission of additional evidences. It says that ld. CIT(A) shall admit additional evidence only whence it has been confronted before the Assessing Officer. In the case of the assessee this opportunity was not provided which is against the principles of natural justice and ld. CIT(A) rejected admission of additional evidences on the ground that Assessing Officer has provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee to produce before him sundry creditors and also for the reason that assessee was unable to explain satisfactorily why these evidences were not filed before the Assessing Officer. This exercise is not warranted within purview of rule 46A. 8. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied on the orders of the authorities below. 9. We have perused the case record and heard the rival contentions and we find that in this case addition made by the Revenue authorities are basically for two reasons, firstly Assessing Officer has issued notices under section 133(6) to the sundry creditors and that none of them appeared before him nor any written submission or confirmations were fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the same. Disallowance was made only for the reason that there was no compliance of the said notice under section 133(6) by Larsen & Toubro Limited." 10. Similarly, in another case regarding genuineness of purchases in the case of JCIT vs. Mathura Das Ashok Kumar, 101 TTJ 810, Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal held that as the genuineness of the purchases has not been disputed, rather, the same has been accepted, the credits stand fully explained and no adverse inference is called for, either on facts or in law. 11. Co-ordinate ITAT Kolkata Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Debdas Dutta, West Bengal in ITA No.1595/Kol/2014 on the similar issue has observed and held as follows:- "In the instant case, the addition was made by AO on the ground that the trade creditors could not respond to the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act. However, Ld. CIT(A) reversed the order of AO. It is undisputed fact that all the trade creditors appearing in the balance-sheet are arising out of the expense of material purchased by the assessee. Thus all the purchases have been duly accepted by the AO and same was not disputed. However, the trade creditors which are emanating from the purchases....