TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1261
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2.2 That the learned CIT (Appeals) further erred in not appreciating various evidences concerning sub-contractors such as details of work done by them, measurement details, their confirmation, PAN, 1TR, Bank Account, TDS made etc. Prayed that payment to sub-contractors have been made wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the appellant and disallowance of expenses is arbitrary, under presumption & surmises and be deleted. 2.3 That the learned CIT (Appeals) further erred in disallowing Rs. 1,55,35.633/- U/s 37 ignoring the fact that in some account only opening balance was brought down and there was no transaction during the year, which was added by the learned Assessing Officer U/S 68. Further submitted that the appellant discharged the burden of proving the identification of various sub-contractors, source of credit in their account and genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, the disallowance / addition of Rs. 1,55,35,633/- be deleted. 2.4 That the learned CIT (Appeals) further erred in ignoring various evidences filed as well as statements of concerned parties recorded by the learned Dy. Commissioner and fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly furnishing of particulars is not enough. The Assessing Officer is not satisfied with the assessee‟s explanation and assessed the credit outstanding of these 10 persons totaling to Rs. 1,67,04,633/- as deemed income of the assessee u/s.68 of the Act. 4. The assessee filed detailed written submissions before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) wherein the assessee has stated that merely because notices u/s.133(6) of the Act were returned un-served does not mean that the persons were not genuine. There were in total 52 creditors and it is only with respect to 10 creditors that the notice u/s.133(6) is returned un-served and it is in no way be concluded that the transactions were not genuine. The notice u/s.133(6) were returned not because of wrong postal address but because they remained mostly out of station for performing their works. The assessee had filed confirmation letters, postal address, income tax returns etc. and highlighted all the facts regarding the genuineness of credits. It was also requested that if necessary Inspector of the Department can be deputed to verify their works and existence of these creditors. This submission of the Ld. AR was forwarded to the concerned Asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Revenue Authority. Therefore, the Ld. DR submitted that the addition may be sustained. 7. We have perused the case records and heard the rival contentions. We have also given thoughtful consideration to the findings of the Revenue Authorities. The facts clearly demonstrate that 52 creditors having credit amount is above Rs. 10,00,000/-. In 10 out of those 52 cases, notice u/s.133(6) were returned un-served. This ultimately formed the basis for the Revenue Department to make addition in the hands of assessee u/s.68 of the Act. The facts also demonstrate that necessary documentary evidences such as names, postal addresses, PAN of all the creditors, income tax return, TDS certificate, bank account details were already furnished before the Assessing Officer. Further, the Assessing Officer asked for personal appearance of those 10 creditors from whom the notices were remained unserved. In the remand report, it is clearly stated that the Assessing Officer personally visited the Surajpur which was formerly under the district of Surguja and personally examined 9 out of those 10 creditors. Therefore, it can safely be said that out of 52 creditors, 51 creditors has been personally esta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugh certain parties were not responded to the notice u/s.133(6) of the Act but other evidences in support of the assessee establishing the genuineness of the transaction cannot be disregarded. In the present case also, the assessee is not only provided all the relevant documentary evidences but even the Assessing Officer in the remand report mentioned that he personally inspected 9 out of those 10 disputed creditors, meaning thereby existence of these creditors are established. 10. In the case of CIT v. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.1433 of 2014) (Bom.), Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under: "The Revenue has filed the appeal on following questions: "6.3 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, orders of the Tribunal was perverse in deleting the addition of Rs. 95,00,000/- made u/s. 68 of the Act, relying only on the documentary evidence produced by the Respondent Company while ignoring the key factor that these entities were not traceable at their given addresses. 6.4 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in not appreciating the observations made by the Delh....