TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 186
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccount of disallowance under the head advertisement expenses as the assessee failed to deduct TDS on the same as provided u/s 194J of LT. Act, 1961. ii. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,75,06,612/- made by the A.O. u/s 68 of LT. Act. , 1961 on account of unexplained creditors as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of transactions. iii. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in holding that no adverse inference has been drawn by the AO during the remand proceedings in respect of details/evidences furnished by the appellant whereas the AO nowhere held the creditors as genuine. iv. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law in ignoring....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tiate the contention by furnishing any documentary evidence. Being not convinced with the genuineness of the credits, the AO made the additions of Rs. 2,75,06,612/-. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) and vehemently contended that two of the creditors have confirmed transactions and yet the AO has made the additions. The Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to conduct enquiries in the case of sundry creditors by issuing summons to them u/s 133(6) of the Act and also to examine the genuineness of their books of accounts. The AO submitted its remand report dated 26/06/2015 and after considering the remand report, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions of Rs. 2,75,06,612/-. 4. Aggrieved by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... M/s Sharda Steel Corporation, 140, Loha Mandi, Ghaziabad to whom notice U/S 131 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued which was received back unserved. Hence an addition of &.2,08,30,609/- was made to the income of the assessee. At the appellate stage the assessee has submitted written reply in which it has been stated that "at the outset it is submitted that the actual creditor of the assessee company is M/s Shradha Steel Corporation (prop. Mr. Jagdish Ahuja) and not M/s Shardha Steel Corporation as mentioned in the list of the sundry creditors which' was due to clerical mistake." In, support of his contention' the assessee has filed documentary evidence relating to M/s Shardha Steel Corporation, Ghaziabad, which 'are enclosed here....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the documents are being enclosed herewith for your kind perusal....." 3.2.4 The appellant has furnished rejoinder on the remand report of the AO which is reproduced as under.- The submissions of the appellant on the Remand Report Dated 26.06.2015 are as under " 1. Jagdish Kumar Ahuja prop. Shradha Steel Corporation (Addition of Rs. 2,08,30,609/-) The above creditor has produced himself before the Ld. A.O. and has got recorded his statements: The transaction of the above creditor with the appellant has been verified and accepted by him. The assessment of the above creditor has been completed by the same Ld. A.O. for Assessment Year 2011-12. The various details/ documents relating to genuineness of the tra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e above fact and other submissions on record, it is clear that the creditor Anurag Ahuja prop. Shanker Metal & Alloys is not a bogus party but is a genuine party and therefore the addition made by the Ld. A.O. is not justified Mr. Manoj Yadav Prop lv/IS Superior Power Supply Automation (Addition of Rs. 2,62,187/-) The Statements of the Creditor were recorded during assessment proceedings and are on record. Copy of the same has been submitted by the appellant in written submissions filed by the appellant during appeal proceedings. Other documents have also been filed in support of the genuineness of the creditor in June 2014 and reply' March 2015. . On the basis of statements recorded and other documents on record, the ....