TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 318
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment year 2018-19. The grounds of appeal are as under: - "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,53,74,436/- made u/s 68 of the Act on account of sundry creditors without appreciating the facts that the assessee failed to justify the sundry creditors during both assessment as well as appellate proceedings. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in Partly-deleting the Dis-allowance of business expenditure to the extent of Rs. 2,53,20,605/- (80% of total expenditure of Rs. 3,16,50,756/-) made u/s 37(1) of the Act without....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-18 which was exempt under section 10(23B) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the assessee had prayed before the ld. Assessing Officer, that the assessment proceedings may kindly be dropped. However, the ld. Assessing Officer noted that there were huge number of sundry creditors amounting to Rs. 8,53,74,736/- and large amount of direct expenditure amounting to Rs. 3,16,50,756/- on which information was required, as also information in support of claim under section 10(23B). However, in spite of opportunities, the assessee had failed to furnish this information before him. Accordingly, the ld. Assessing Officer treated the cash deposits of Rs. 1,99,64,300/- as unexplained under section 68. He also held that the sundry creditors amounting to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ow the entire expenditure when the assessee had furnished the P&L account and the balance-sheet. However, the assessee also had a responsibility to justify these expenses before the ld. Assessing Officer. Since the same had not been done, he confirmed 20% of the said addition and gave relief to the assessee for the rest. 4. The Department is aggrieved at this decision of the ld. CIT(A) to delete the addition on account of sundry creditors and also to partly delete the disallowance of business expenditure to the extent of Rs. 2,53,20,605/-. Accordingly, it has come in appeal before us on account of the same. Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR (hereinafter referred to as the ld. CIT DR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue pointed out that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t maintainable in law on account of the exemption that the assessee society enjoyed. It was further submitted that the reasons for failure to make compliance before the ld. CIT(A) or the ld. Assessing Officer had been pointed out and were the unfamiliarity of the assessee with electronic proceedings which resulted in the assessee being unable to keep track of notices and orders. However, he undertook that if the matter was restored back to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer, he would ensure compliance to the various notices issued by the ld. Assessing Officer and ensure that all relevant details were furnished to establish the fact that the assessee was entitled for the exemption. 6. We have duly considered the facts and circumstances....