TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 1127
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons as the substantial questions of law arising in this tax appeal : "[A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in upholding the decision of CIT(A) thereby restricting the addition to Rs. 11,27,363/- as against disallowance of Rs. 37,57,877/- made by the Assessing Officer? [B] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in upholding the decision of CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,34,64,887/- made on account of bogus Sundry Creditors? [C] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in upholding the decision of CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,02,29,487/- made on account of unexplained bank deposit?" 3. With regard to the first proposed question i.e. with res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tors and called for confirmation and after considering the entire facts and circumstances deleted the major part of addition by partly allowing the grounds of the assessee in this regard but restricted the disallowance to 30% of total claimed amount i.e. Rs. 11,27,363/- without any justified reason and basis therefore, the entire disallowance/addition made by the AO may kindly be deleted. The ld. AR has also placed reliance on the decision of ITAT, Allahabad in the case of JCIT vs. Mathura Das Ashok Kumar reported in 101 TTJ 810 (All.) and order of ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of Vishal Infrastructure Ltd. reported in 107 TTJ 484 (Hyd.) and submitted that the claim of the assessee has to be allowed in toto without any addition or restriction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion and such action of the AO based on irrelevant and incorrect facts cannot be held as valid and sustainable. The ld. AR also contended that the ld. CIT(A) accepted all the contentions of the assessee and noted that the accounts maintained by the assessee in accordance with the method consistently followed and accepted by the Department for the last seven years and the same could not be rejected without there being any material change in the facts. He further submitted that when no specific defect or discrepancy has been pointed out by the authorities below in the audited books of accounts of the assessee then, no disallowance or 30% of total claim of expenses without any basis cannot be disallowed therefore, entire claim of the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....et despite the fact that the assessee submitted all relevant details to prove the genuineness of sundry creditors and primary onus has been duly discharge by the appellant. The ld. AR submitted that at Page No.6, the ld. CIT(A) has reproduced detailed table showing the claim of the assessee and major amounts has been received on account of booking of residential units/flats from various allottees and sale of respective units/flats have been made to these parties in the subsequent assessment years. The ld. AR also submitted that from para (ca) at Page 11 of the first appellate order, it is clear that the ld. CIT(A) issued notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act and the relevant parties confirmed the transactions with the assessee therefore, the same c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gned order, we observe that the ld. CIT(A) has called the assessee to submit all the details of transaction with each and every creditor which was submitted by the assessee and reproduced by the ld. first appellate authority in para (c) at pages 6 to 11 of the first appellate order. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) issued notices u/s. 133(6) of the Act to nine major parties/sundry creditors and all the parties replied to the notice and copies of their replies were verified by the ld. CIT(A) in the subsequent paras of impugned order, which shows the exercise and examination undertaken by the ld. CIT(A) before granting relief to the assessee. In the last operative of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) referred to the ratio of the decision of Hon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndry creditors totaling to Rs. 1,34,64,887/- (addition on this count made by the AO has been deleted by the ld. CIT(A) and findings of the ld. First appellate authority has been confirmed by us in the earlier part of this order). Further, in the said table, the ld. CIT(A) has also considered and noted the amount of Rs. 1,02,29,487/- which is the impugned amounts deposited to the said three bank accounts of the assessee. These factual findings have not been controverted by the AO or ld. DR during arguments before us. Therefore, these factual findings supported the conclusion arrived by the ld. CIT(A) that the amounts added and assessed as unexplained sundry creditors includes the impugned amount of Rs. 1,02,29,487/- which was deposited to th....