TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 724
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1.1 The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A), NFAC) under section 250 of the Act to the extent prejudicial to the appellant is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. Addition in respect of sundry creditors 2.1. The learned AO and the CIT(A), NFAC have erred in making addition of Rs. 60,529, Rs. 90,79,528 and Rs. 29,60,099 in respect of the amounts standing in the names of sundry creditors only for the reason that the creditors have not confirmed the balances standing in the name of the appellant independently. 2.2. The learned AO and CIT(A), NFAC erred in not appreciating and considering the balance confirm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a 4.1 of his order did not respond regarding their credit balances as appearing in their names in the books of assessee and the assessee was asked to produce them for examination. The assessee was unable to produce the sundry creditors and failed to establish that the sundry creditors are genuine. Accordingly, the entire closing balance of Rs. 90,79,428 of 24 creditors was added to total income of assessee. 4. The AO further noted that 3 notices sent to the creditors returned unserved. In this regard also the assessee did not produce the creditors before the AO. Accordingly Rs. 29,60,999 was also added back to the total income of assessee. 5. Further the AO sent letters to debtors, out of which in the case of 6 debtors letters returne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch creditors, some part of the goods are lying as closing stock of assessee and there is no dispute on the sales and closing stock as declared by the assessee therefore, the AO(Assessing Officer) is not justified in disallowing the sundry creditors. He further submitted that the case of the assessee for AYs 2011-12 & 2013-14 were subject to scrutiny proceedings and order was passed u/s. 143(3) on 26.3.2014 and 26.02.2016 respectively and there is no addition made towards creditors. The closing balance appearing in the books of assessee of creditors were shifted to the next assessment year as opening balance and the AO has not disputed it while completing the assessment proceedings for AY 2013-14 on 26.2.2016, however the assessment order f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rward balances, no addition under section 68 12 DCIT v. Amod Petrochem (P) Ltd. [2008] 307 ITR 265 (Guj.) 13 CIT v. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. [2008] 301 ITR 384 (Delhi) 8. The ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities and submitted that regarding difference in accounts of Rs. 60,529, the assessee did not file any evidence as placed in Page 106 of PB. It was the primary duty of the assessee to substantiate all the entries made in the books of account with cogent materials. However the assessee has failed to do so. Further in respect of non-compliance of notices and notices unserved to the creditors, he categorically relied on para 6.4.2 of the CIT(Appeals) order and subitted that assessee did not file confirmatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see which is not acceptable. The assessee was granted sufficient time but the assessee was unable to produce such in support of claim. Therefore, this addition is confirmed. 9.2 Further in respect of those creditors who have not responded to the notices of AO as well as in case of some creditors some notices were not served or returned unserved, the assessee was also asked to produce confirmations from creditors, but the assessee had provided only name and address as per assessment order. But on going through the pages 115 to 145 of PB (sl.no.22) filed by the assessee, the assessee has mentioned that letter dated 2.2.2015 filed with the AO on 6.2.2015 along with confirmation of sundry creditors balances signed by the sundry creditors and....