TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 455
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of 19 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The only issue involved in this appeal is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 48,36,421/- as unsecured loan & sundry creditors u/s. 68 of the Act. 5. Brief facts of the case ae that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of polymer products. The original assessment was completed on 30.12.2018, inter alia, making addition of Rs. 48,36,421/-, against which the assessee had preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The latter dismissed the assessee's appeal. On a second appeal, the Tribunal, by its order dated 28.9.2012 in ITA No. 107/CTK/2012 restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue of verification of the loan creditors in accordance with the provisions of the Income tax Act after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal, the present assessment order has been framed by the AO u/s. 143(3)/254 of the Act on 3.2.2014 observing that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the said liabilities of Rs. 48,36,421/- and added the same u/s. 68 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant vide its reply dated 26.11.2012 was a complete mis-match with that obtained from M/s. Sinclair Builders (P) Ltd. vide AO's notice u/s. 133(6) dated 13.12.2013. Further, the copies of bank accounts submitted by the appellant and confirmation from M/s. Sinclair Builders (P) Ltd. depicted a completely different set of transactions. Hence, the AO held that the cash credit of Rs. 39,76,766/- claimed as loans from M/s. Sinclair Builders (P) Ltd. remained unexplained. In the cases of M/s. Suburban Industries Limited, M/s. MAKS International and Sri Pratap Chandra, no confirmations were received by the AO. Hence, the genuineness of loan transaction could not be verified by the AO. In other words, credits of Rs. 8,60,655/- remained unexplained. The AO has further reported that sufficient opportunities of being heard were given to the appellant vide order sheet notings i.e. on 17.10.2012, 5.11.2012, 26.11.2012, 25.6.2013, 18.7.2013 and 5.12.2013. The AO opined in view of the above facts that the sundry creditors of Rs. 48,36,421/- (Rs. 39,76,766 + Rs. 8,60,655) are not genuine and hence not acceptable. In the rejoinder, the appellant has failed to explain and prove the identit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount copy of Sinclair Builders to substantiate that the loans were obtained from the loan creditor and subsequently repayment was made. He also referred to page 14 of paper book, which is copy of loan agreement between the assessee and Sinclair Builders Pvt. Ltd. Ld. A.R. submitted that the Assessing Officer found the difference between the account of the assessee and information obtained through invoking section 133(6) and straightaway added the entire loan without considering the reconciliation statement in regard to TDS debits. It is argued by learned counsel that the loan was obtained by account payee cheque. Confirmation from the creditor as well as copy of his accounts were furnished before the Assessing Officer. It was also stated that the interest has also been paid by account payee cheque and the tax had also been deposited at source from such interest amount. It was further stated that the creditor was assessed to tax. It was also stated that the assessee maintains regular books of account. Copy of bank statement was also furnished in which there have been various deposits and withdrawal. As regards to the loan of Rs. 5,84,510/- taken from M/s. Suburban Industries Ltd., L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... bills supporting purchases were submitted. The assessee has submitted the confirmed copy of the account from the books of the supplier and also stated that he is assessed to income tax with ITO Ward 25/4 New Delhi. Further regarding the address supplied by the assessee on which notices u/s. 133(6) remained unserved, assessee supplied the same address which is also shown in the income tax return of the supplier. Non compliance of summons u/s. 131 by the suppliers cannot be the concern of the assessee. It is not the case of the revenue that assessee was asked to produce the supplier, in fact purchases material have been used at various sites. The material for Bill No. 1 was issued at Jaipur Site and similarly, bills with other material have gone to Mathura, Karuli, Rajgarh, Udaipur and other sites. As the suppliers are separately assessed to fax the issue of the low balance is required to be addressed by them and it cannot be a reason for disallowance of the purchases from that party, as many times purchases are also made from bank borrowers. Furthermore, merely the assessee being the introducer for opening the bank account also do not support the contention of the AO, unless there ....