TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1238
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....), Mumbai u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 2. The ld. Assessing Officer has aggrieved with that order and has preferred this appeal raising following grounds: "i. On the facts and circumstances of the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs. 5,63,40,148/- by holding that the assessee has satisfactorily explained the identity of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction without appreciating the facts that the identity of transaction was not established since M/s. B.S. Hydrocarbons Private Limited has not filed return of income and during the course of assessment proceedings assessee has not filed copy of return of income, audited accounts i.e. profit and loss account, balance sheet of M/s. B.S. Hydrocarbons Private Limited. i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... postal authorities as not known. The AO requested the assessee to produce the parties for verification. The assessee did not appear and neither filed any detail. One more opportunity was granted by another letter dated 02.12.2016. The same was also not complied with. On 15.12.2016, a final opportunity was granted. Some persons from the assessee submitted in one case of one creditor ,loan confirmation, profit and loss and balance sheet have already been sent through courier and requested to consider the same. However, in case of one party namely B.S. Hydrocarbon provided nothing was submitted. The AO also verified that party is not filing any return of income. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs. 5,63,40,148/- with respect to amount of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om the confirmation and the annual accounts of B.S. Hydrocarbons Pvt. Ltd. found that in its balance sheet trade receivable of Rs. 5,63,40,148/- was shown in the name of assessee M/s. Nirmit Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Thus, he found that in the supplier's accounts assessee is shown as a debtor for the identical amount. He deleted the addition holding that when purchases have been accepted as genuine the resultant creditor cannot be added to the total income of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) followed the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Ritu Anurag Agarwal (2009) (7) TMI 1247, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs Pancham Das Jain 205 CTR 444 and Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of PCIT vs Kulw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsidered the contentions of the ld. Departmental Representative and also perused the orders of the lower authorities. The ld. Assessing Officer has selected the case of the scrutiny for verification of disproportionate creditors. The AO was not furnished any information with respect to one party B.S. Hydrocarbons Pvt. Ltd. whose outstanding was Rs. 5,64,23,308/-. All the notices sent to that party u/s 133(6) and u/s 131 of the Act were not responded to or not served. Thus, no information was submitted by the assessee with respect to this supplier which resulted in addition. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the appellant has filed the written submission which was uploaded on ITBA portal wherein assessee explained its turnover, its creditors....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has not produced any document in respect to the above creditors before the ld. Au. Thus, it is apparent that the ld. CIT(A) has considered the additional evidence filed before it by the assessee which was not available before the ld. AO. No doubt, according to the provisions of Rule 46A, the ld. CIT(A) is empowered to admit the additional evidence, provided it falls into conditions as mentioned in clause (a) to (d). Further for admitting such evidence a specific order under Rule 46A also to be passed under the appellate order. Accordingly, to sub-rule (iii), he has to give an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to verify the same. In the appellate order, we do not find any (1) reference to any application made by the Assessee for admissio....