TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 930
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder, the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order dated 29/12/2016 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Thane [ the ld AO ] u/s 144 of the Income tax Act [ the Act] was dismissed. 02. The assessee aggrieved with that appellate order as preferred this appeal by raising the following grounds: "1. (i) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding ex-parte order passed by AO u/s 144 r.w.s 143(3) dated 29/12/2016 of the IT Act, 1961 which is bad in law as AO has passed order u/s 143(3) and also u/s 144 which is not permissible in law thus there is no application of mind by AO. (ii) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stment in property and large increase in sundry creditors ,received the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. The assessee submitted the details of the purchasers etc. and of the sundry creditors. As assessee could not furnish confirmation and permanent account numbers of the parties as same was not available at that time. In absence of any such evidence, the sundry creditors amounting to Rs. 2,44,85,512/- were added to the total income and consequently assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 29/12/2016 determining the total income at Rs. 2,47,96,252/-. 04. Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee challenged the order passed u/s 144 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act as bad in la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es amounting to Rs. 2,31,65,707/-, from whom land was purchased, did not respond. With respect to thirteen other parties, reply was received from 11 parties where in parties amounting to Rs. 11,81,755/- confirmed the transactions. Only two carpenters did not respond to 133 (6) notices. The appellant was asked to file rejoinder. After considering all the submissions, remand report and rejoinder of the Assessee, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition u/s 68 of Rs. 2,44,85,512/- for reason that before the Assessing Officer, assessee was asked to produce the sundry creditors along with copies of bill etc. but same were not produced. The ld CIT (A) even did not delete the addition of sundry creditors who confirmed the transaction u/s 133 (6) and ld A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll time labour , they reside in small town, payment is made in subsequent year by cheque, and amounts are debited to fixed assets on which depreciation is allowed by the ld AO. These two payments are not claimed as deduction. In view of this, the addition has been wrongly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 06. The Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the Lower Authorities. 07. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the order of the Lower Authorities. We find that on 16th September, 2013 a sale deed of agricultural land situated at Panvel, Raigarh was entered in to for purchase of land by assessee at total consideration of Rs. 2,96,75,707/- from nine different parties. All those parties are agriculturist residing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of property. Thus, when parties are identified, transaction of purchase of land is accepted, reason for outstanding amount is explained, consideration of land is not in doubt, no evidences that parties have been paid from undisclosed sources, addition of outstanding amount treating it as bogus sundry creditors cannot be made. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to sustain the order of the Lower Authorities with respect to the outstanding of Rs. 2,31,65,707/-. Accordingly, the addition to them to extent that purchase of land is deleted. 08. Second addition is with respect creditors of Rs. 13,19,805/- for various services and purchases. In the remand proceedings, the creditors worth Rs. 11,81,755/- have submitted their confirmation as w....