TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 2021
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n upholding the completion of Best Judgment Assessment which is against the law and the fact as the Ld. AO had no material in his possession to which such an assessment which was made in undue haste. The assessment was finalized at least nine months before the same was getting time barred. 2. That no reasonable opportunity has been provided to the assessee by the Ld. AO and the assessee is prevented by reasonable cause from providing the necessary information. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly sustained the addition of Rs.4,19,990/-on account of fictitious debtors namely M/s Pankaj Cement Store, M/s Sharma Traders, M/s Supreme Enterprises and M/s Varinder Dogra Power Project as the assessee had furnished complete confirme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... debtors shown in the balance sheet. However, the assessee did not furnish the same. The AO referred to the audit report in form 3CB accompanying the return of income, in which the auditor has given remarks that "sundry debtors and creditors balance remain unconfirmed", therefore the AO asked the assessee to furnish the addresses of the sundry debtors and creditors as appearing in the books of account along with their copies of accounts. However, no reply was furnished by the assessee nor the books of account were produced. Accordingly, the AO treated the sundry debtors of Rs.626,026/- (out of sundry debtors shown at Rs.875,498/-) and sundry creditors amounting to Rs.359,304/- out of sundry creditors shown at Rs.546,296/- as fictitious and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duly been accepted by the Department. Further, it was also submitted that merely because there is no opening balance and non-providing PAN, should not be reasons for making the addition and in respect of Supreme Enterprises, the assessee has not only filed d a Suit against him but also filed a Criminal Complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. On the aforesaid reason, there was no justification in confirming the addition of Rs.4,19,990/- by the Ld. CIT(A) and hence, liable to be deleted. In respect of sustaining the addition of Rs.1,41,324 qua Arora Packers and Hakim Rai Labh Singh, it is observed by the Ld. CIT(A) that the creditors have not brought forward balance from the last year and the PAN and address of the said credito....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1. The assessee meets all the conditions prescribed u/s 80IB for claiming the deduction. It is a small scale industry registered in the state of Himachal Pradesh which reflects from the application filed before the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh in respect of permanent registration as small scale industries. 6. On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have gone through with the facts and circumstances of the case. In respect of ground No.1, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee is manufacturing cement and its books of account are audited and sales and purchase are not doubted, but, some of the sundry debtors have been sustained as bogus debtors by the Ld. CIT(A), however, we realized that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....page No.80 of the Paper Book). On the aforesaid reasoning, the addition of Rs.141,324 (Rs.81730 qua Arora Packers and Rs.59,594 qua Hakim Rai Labh Singh) cannot be sustained on the reasoning given by the CIT(A), however, for just decision of case, so as to enable proper verification of the trade balances, we feel it appropriate to remand back the issue under consideration to the file of Assessing Officer to decide afresh, in view of the submissions made by the Ld. AR and the observation made by us in the order. 7.2 Next issue i.e. Ground No.5 of the appeal relates to the sustaining the addition of Rs.91,511/- and Rs.1,04,511/- on account of M/s R.K. Foods, as it was observed by the Ld. CIT(A) that although the appellant has confirmed ....