TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 546
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Ld. CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified in confirming the addition of Rs. 21,26,190/- incorrectly and unjustifiably made by the AO. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified in rejecting the explanation filed by the assessee regarding the expenditure of Rs. 21,26,190/-. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified in applying the provision of section 292B. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified in confirming the addition of Rs. 21,26,190/- made by the AO u/s. 68 of the Act, even though admittedly there was no books of accounts and hence section 68 would not be applicable. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the authority below were incorrect and unjustified in making addition of Rs. 21,26,190/- u/s. 68 where as the provisions of section 68 are not applicable to the facts of the case. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified in not accepting the affidavit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....equent years and to file necessary evidences in support thereof. Assessee filed its written submissions before the AO with documentary evidences explaining the query of the AO by stating that assessee was not to be faulted by failure of M/s Kay Dee Enterprises for their commission to disclose sales to sale tax authorities, that the parties are no longer working at the places mentioned in their bills and after a lapse of more than 3 years it was difficult locating them that the amount of Rs. 21,26,190/- was paid in the next assessment year, that the books of accounts were lost and police report given and that the entire building accounts are reflected in the bank statements. AO did not accept the contention of the assessee and in the absence of supported evidences, the AO proceeded to make the addition of Rs. 21,26,190/- u/s. 68 of the Act. No doubt that AO has made other additions, which are not before us, hence, the same are not discussed here for the sake of brevity. The AO completed the assessment at Rs. 78,89,493/- u/s. 144 of the Act vide order dated 19.3.2004. Aggrieved with the assessment order dated 18.7.2005, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Naresh Jain, Director of the assessee company. All these submissions of the assessee were forwarded to the AO for his comment. However, the AO adopted his earlier stand. Hence, he submitted that addition in dispute is not permissible u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act which should have been invoked u/s. 69C of the Act. He further submitted that applicability of section 69C of the Act in place of section 68 of the Act applied by the AO, enabling the provision of section 292B permits the authority to do so in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Yadu Hari Dalmia vs. CIT (1980) 126 ITR 48 (Delhi). He further stated that unpaid purchase price could not be added to the income of the assessee as per the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Aggarwal (2010) 2 taxmann.com 134 (Delhi) and further submitted that when purchases were not doubted by the AO, therefore, the addition in dispute u/s. 68 of the Act is not permissible. As per the aforesaid decision, in the present case AO had not disallowed the purchases from those creditors and trading result were also not disturbed. In support of his contention, Ld. Counsel for the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erable cogency in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assesee stated that the addition u/s. 68 of the Act could not be invoked to make the disallowance, because the said amount was paid to in the next assessment year and the same could not be paid during the year under consideration since the building was sold in the next assessment year. After receiving the payment of building sold, the payment was made and it was noted that the documentary proof is the books of the assessee which are audited and it shows that all these payments were made and the assessee also filed necessary evidence before the authorities below which was also accepted by the department in the next years for substantiating the claim of the assessee. We further note that the assessee has also filed the affidavit of Sh. Naresh Jain, Director of the assessee company. All these submissions of the assessee were forwarded to the AO for his comment. However, the AO adopted his earlier stand. Hence, the addition in dispute is not permissible u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act which should have been invoked u/s. 69C of the Act. We further note that the applicability of section 69C of the Act in place of section 68 of the Act a....