TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 382
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... That on the basis of facts & circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the additions of Rs.1146695/= made by Ld A.O as bad in law without proper adjudication of assessee's submissions. In any view of the matter & in any case the action of Ld CIT (A) in-L not deleting the Additions/ Setting aside the order of Ld A.O is bad in law as the same was passed contrary to documentary evidence without proper rebuttal of appellant's submissions against the principles of natural justice. 2. Reg : Income from undisclosed sources without adequate justification That on the basis of facts & circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the additions made by Ld A.O at Rs.120325/= as as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es. The ld. Counsel further submitted that M/s Stambh Engineers supplied the material in respect of building and their accounts were coming from earlier years and purchases were made during the year and payments were also made during the same period and there was a credit of Rs.11,46,695/- at the end of the year which was paid during subsequent financial period through banking channel. Therefore, the same cannot be treated as fictitious liability. Drawing our attention to paper book pages 20-22, the ld. Counsel submitted that the copy of accounts of M/s Stambh Engineers in the books of the assessee from 01.07.2006 to 31.03.2007 clearly show that the account was running, payment was made, TDS was deducted and WTC was also payable/paid. The l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and on 31.03.2009 the account was tallied and no balance was left. Page 39, which is ledger account of M/s Stambh Engineers clearly show that the assessee has made payments to M/s Stambh Engineers through banking channel after deducting TDS and WCT and such transactions cannot be doubted in any manner. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that the AO made addition in the hands of the assessee without any justified basis and reasoning and without bringing out any positive adverse material against the assessee to establish that the liability was fictitious. Therefore, the ground No.1 of the assessee is allowed and the AO is directed to delete the addition. 6. Apropos ground No.2 of the assessee, the ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not sustainable. Thus, grounds No.2 and 3 of the assessee may kindly be dismissed. 9. On careful consideration of above rival submissions, we are of the considered view that the AO firstly proceeded to make disallowance of Rs.11,46,695/- on account of credit found at the end of the year in the account of M/s Stambh Engineers who supplied the material in respect of building. By the earlier part of this order, we have since allowed ground No.1 of the assessee deleting the addition made by the AO. When we proceed to consider the addition made by the AO on account of disallowance of depreciation and further disallowance of 20% of depreciation claimed by the assessee on the allegation that the amount of Rs.6,01,627/- was found towards some ot....