TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 960
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before us. Earlier, the Tribunal vide order dated 12.10.2018 had remanded the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 31.12.2019 made the impugned additions assessing the income of the assessee at Rs. 23,98,20,955/-. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions so made by the Assessing Officer vide impugned order dated 26.12.2023. The assessee has, thus, come in appeal before us. 3. The assessee in this appeal has taken the following revised grounds of appeal: "1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing an exparte order without dealing with the merit of the case. 2. For that on the facts a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....frastructure : Rs. 4,77,268/- (b) Ram Naresh Singh : Rs. 5,06,540/- (c) Swastik Engineering : Rs. 10,50,009/- Rs. 20,33,817/- 4. Ground No.1 - Ground No.1 is general in nature. 5. Ground No.2 - Vide Ground No.2, the assessee has agitated against the confirmation of addition of Rs. 6,27,00,000/- as unexplained/bogus credits u/s 68 of the Act allegedly received from M/s Growfast Realtors (P) Ltd. 6. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the earlier assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) of the Act as well as appellate orders to submit that the assessee had duly explained before the Assessing Officer that the records of the assessee for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....attention to page 75 of the paper-book, which is a copy of letter addressed by the assessee to the Assessing Officer, whereby, the aforesaid transaction has been duly explained and it has been mentioned that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,27,00,000/- and Rs. 50,00,000/- were transferred by the assessee through banking channel vide cheque/RTGS no.107226 and 107227 respectively on 26.03.2012. The ld. counsel has further invited our attention to page 95 of the paper-book to show that even the TDS was duly deducted on the aforesaid payments made to the contractors. 7. In view of above, the assessee had duly proved on the file that the aforesaid amount represents the payment made by the assessee to the contractor M/s Growfast Realtors (P) Ltd.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....counsel has further invited our attention to pages 114-115 of the paper book, which is a certificate of an accountant under first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 201 of the Act certifying the aforesaid payment to M/s Sarda Vanijya (P) Ltd. by the assessee and TDS was duly deducted thereupon and further that the payee had duly taken into consideration the aforesaid payments in its return of income. The ld. counsel has also invited our attention to pages 87 & 88 of the paper-book to submit that the aforesaid transaction was duly explained to the Assessing Officer. The aforesaid documents on record duly proved that the aforesaid amount was business payment by the assessee to M/s Sarda Vanijya (P) Ltd. and there is no question of addition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Officer has accepted the trading liabilities in respect of other parities. 11. Under the circumstances, the aforesaid trading liabilities of the small amounts cannot be merely added only because the assessee could not furnish the relevant documents in respect of the aforesaid two parties. The preponderance of probabilities in this respect lie in favour of the assessee. Considering that the assessee has been able to produce evidences in respect of the remaining parties and also considering that the assessee has collected records from the various parties, we do not find justification on the part of the lower authorities in making the addition in respect of the aforesaid two parties. The same is accordingly ordered to be deleted. 12. G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mentioned and the payment received has also been shown and the balance as on 31.03.2012 has been confirmed at Rs. 1324941/- . The ld. counsel has also invited our attention to the assessment order dated 16.03.2015 to submit that the aforesaid documents had been duly furnished before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, however, noted that the assessee had shown trading liability of Rs. 1831481/-, whereas, as per the details furnished by Ram Naresh Singh, the closing balance was as on 31.03.2012 of Rs. 1324941/-, therefore, the addition was made on the difference of Rs. 506540/-. The ld. counsel in this respect has submitted that the amount of trading liability of Rs. 1831481/- was rightly claimed by the assessee, however, since the....