TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 165
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bank by treating the same as the liability, which was ceased to exist. 3. The assessee in the present case is a partnership firm, which is engaged in the business of wholesale trading of medicines. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 28.09.2015 declaring total income at 'NIL'. In the balance-sheet filed along with the said return, unsecured loan of Rs. 2,29,065/- taken from Standard Chartered Bank was shown by the assessee. In response to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 133(6) of the Act, the Standard Chartered Bank, however, confirmed the outstanding balance payable by the assessee at Rs. 62,330/-. Since the assessee could not explain this difference of Rs. 1,66,735/-, the As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the view that the said liability can be treated as ceased to have existed. I, therefore, find no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue confirming the addition of Rs. 1,66,735/- made by the Assessing Officer. Ground No. 1 is accordingly dismissed. 5. The issue raised in Ground No. 2 relates to the addition of Rs. 8,26,139/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on account of un-reconciled difference in the account of certain sundry creditors and debtors. 6. As noticed by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings from the replies received to the notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act, there was a total difference of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e reconciling the said difference and in the remand report submitted to the ld. CIT(Appeals), the following comments were made by the Assessing Officer:- "Difference in closing balance of sundry creditors and debtors: (A) M/s. Life Drug House Pvt. Limited:_ Closing balance difference of Rs. 2,33,954/-. On perusal of reconciliation statement and further verification from bank statements, it was found that, the different cheques of the said amount were debited form the assessee account on 04.04.2015 and further dates. It appears that cheques were issued by the assessee in April, 2015, because it takes only one or two days to clear the cheques from the bank, though the party has shown the cheques being received in FY 2014-15.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Assessing Officer in his remand report, I am of the view that the difference in the closing balance of the concerned parties to the extent of Rs. 7,49,184/- was satisfactorily explained by the assessee and the ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer on this issue to that extent. I, therefore, modify the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue and restrict the addition of Rs. 8,26,139/- made by the Assessing Officer to Rs. 76,955/-. Ground No. 2 of the assessee's appeal is thus partly allowed. 9. At the time of hearing before the Tribunal, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has not pressed Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee in this appeal involving the issue of addition of ....