TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 857
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Assessing Officer (AO) under the head 'sundry creditors'. During the assessment proceedings, the AO found outstanding 'sundry creditors' to the extent of Rs. 4,52,79,448/- in sixteen cases out of which in nine cases, the outstanding balance remained the same. Fresh creditors were introduced in five cases. In the earlier year, the AO treated 20% of the sundry creditors as unproved for assessee's failure to furnish the confirmations. In the year under consideration also, the assessee did not furnish the confirmation letters from the sundry creditors in respect of outstanding balance to the extent of Rs. 2,38,22,971/-. Hence, the AO treated 20% of the unproved credits of Rs. 2,38,22,971/- which worked out to Rs. 47,64,594/- and added back ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... treated the same as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act and confirmed the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/-. Subsequently, the Ld.CIT(A) passed corrigendum order dated 28.02.2019, correcting the addition of Rs. 25.50 lakhs instead of Rs. 25 lakhs. 4. Against which the assessee is in appeal before us. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR argued that the Ld.CIT(A) has enhanced the addition without giving enhancement notice, therefore, argued that the issue should be remitted back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) or the addition should be restricted to Rs. 5,10,000/-, being 20% of the difference of Rs. 25,50,000/- as suggested by the AO in the remand report. 4.1. The Ld.AR further argued that alternatively the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have sustained the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d before the AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A) that the difference was due to unaccounted sales. The assessee has taken different argument before the ITAT stating there were mistakes in the order of Ld.CIT(A) with regard to unaccounted sales, which is nothing but an afterthought and argued that the assessee is taking inconsistent stand before the CIT(A) and ITAT, hence no credence to be given to the argument of the Ld.AR with regard to submission of factual mistakes. The assessee thought that estimation of gross income would be beneficial to him on unaccounted sales, therefore, submitted before the Ld.CIT(A) that the difference was due to unrecorded sales or the inflation of purchases and stock for bank loan purposes. When the Ld.CIT(A) has given....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....03.2014 is considered, the outstanding balance was at Rs. 2,02,23,204/- and 20% of the addition would come to Rs. 40,44,000/-. Hence submitted that there was no enhancement made by the Ld.CIT(A) and further submitted that suggestion given by ITO in the remand report is not binding on the Ld.CIT(A). 6.1. The Ld.DR further argued that the Ld.CIT(A) has given full opportunity to the assessee to explain the difference and the assessee failed to explain the difference before the Ld.CIT(A) and even before the ITAT. The Ld.AR has no explanation whatsoever with regard to difference, therefore, argued that the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition of Rs. 25,50,000/- and no interference is called for. Accordingly, requested to dismiss the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of Venkateswara Iron Corporation which was Rs. 1.00 crore and 20% of which works out to Rs. 20 lakhs, but not Rs. 5,10,000/- or Rs. 5,00,000/- as argued by the Ld.AR in Ground No.3. Since we have held that no enhancement was made by the Ld.CIT(A), this issue has no relevance except of academic interest. 7.2. The remaining grounds are related to confirming the addition of Rs. 25,50,000/-. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the difference was due to the payments received, but not related to the trading transactions as observed by the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, argued that there was factual mistake in the order of the Ld.CIT(A). We have gone through the assessment order as well as the Ld.CIT(A) order. Before the AO at the stag....