TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 638
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear 2010-11. 2. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of this appeal are that the Assessee had filed its return of income on dated 28.09.2010 by declaring loss of Rs. 1,61,500/- and claimed a sum of Rs. 11,67,475/- as refund. The said return of the Assessee was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and resulted into passing of assessment order dated 30.03.2013 u/s. 143(3) read with section 145(3) of the Act, whereby various additions have been made which includes the amount of Rs. 1,72,34,476/- on account of difference in confirmation statements or non-satisfactory confirmations received from the sundry creditors, Rs. 17 lakhs on account of disallowance u/s. 40A(2)(b) of the Act qua payment made to the interested parties by not mentioning the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....account by the firm in A.Y. 2012-13 is an afterthought." 3. We are deciding this appeal ground-wise. By way of ground No. 1 it has been claimed by the Revenue Department that the Ld. Commissioner while deleting this addition ignored the facts that the Assessee had failed to discharge its burden of proof by not providing the PAN/Bank statement of the creditors and even two confirmation is on record with two different signatures from same address of the creditors. 3.1. We observe that the AO made the addition on account of alleged difference in confirmations filed by the sundry creditors or non-satisfactory confirmations. The Ld. Commissioner sought the remand report of the AO qua 7 sundry creditors, in response to which the AO submitte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....M/s. Senthil Mills and M/s. Vee Kay &Company have confirmed the statement and vide remand report dated 15.10.2014 wherein, the AO submitted that as per confirmations filed by M/s. Contec Air, M/s. Jansevak Textile Mills, M/s. JMD Prints and M/s. Collection India, the submission of the Assessee is acceptable and the addition of Rs. 1,72,34,467/- made by the AO, is deleted. 3.5. We have given thoughtful consideration to the conclusion drawn by the Ld. Commissioner on the issue in hand and peculiar facts enumerated above by us and find that the AO by way of remand report dated 21.08.2014 and rejoinder dated 15.10.2014 has confirmed to have verified accounts of all 7 parties qua transactions with the Assessee by receiving the confirmations f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s on 01.04.2009. However, the Ld. Commissioner held that the Assessee has not charged interest on the amount of advance to Ms. Shalini on which the interest is calculated @12% i.e. 96,000/- which is being disallowed out of interest paid by the Assessee firm and the same is being added back in the taxable income for the year under consideration. 4.2. We have given thoughtful consideration to the facts and the determination made by the Ld. Commissioner and the Central Scrutiny report dated 17.04.2015 which was filed by the Revenue Department, may be inadvertently before the bench wherein with regard to the addition made in hand "no appeal is recommended", and are inclined not to interfere with the conclusion drawn by the Ld. Commissioner o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... balance sheet of the firm. Any adjustment with regard to this amount is wrong and not acceptable. In rejoinder dated 15.10.2014, the AO also submitted that it is a mistake on the part of the Assessee that he did not debit the amount to the capital account of the partner Shri Vivek Bhusan. The owner of the property is Shri Vivek Bhusan in his individual capacity, hence, it cannot be shown as advance in the balance sheet of the firm. Whereas, the Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner reiterated its claim that the AO has accepted that it is a mere mistake on the part of the Assessee therefore he did not debit the amount to the capital account of Shri Vivek Bhushan, partner, who is owner of the property. In view of this fact, the said amount....