News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
From the Courts »
 DCIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi vs Advance Surfactants India Ltd, 511/2/1, Rajokri, New Delhi
 Deepa Chauhan, C/o C.S. Anand & Co., 104, Pankaj Tower, 10-Lsc, Savita Vihar, New Delhi – 92 Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), Ghaziabad
 M/s P.Mittal Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., B-542, 2nd Floor, New Friends Colony, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 19(2), C.R. Building, New Delhi – 110 002
 Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd, 3rd Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector-43, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon vs. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd, 3rd Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector-43, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon
 DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi Vs. Sahara Care Ltd, 1, Kapurthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow
 M/s. Mega Media Solutions Vs. Commissioner Trade & Taxes & Anr.
 Shri Subhash Rastogi, Raj Kumar & Associates,CAs L-7A(LGF), South Extn. Part -2, New Delhi. vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward -19(3), New Delhi.a
 Sneh Lata Sawhney, 6, Link Road, Jangpura extension, New Delhi. vs. DCIT, Central circle-7 New Delhi
 AT & T Global Network Services (India) Private Limited Mohan Dev House, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi - 110001 vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-1 New Delhi
 Mohd. Ismile H.No. 729, Sanjay Colony, Arthala, Ghaziabad, Uttar Prades. vs. ITO Ward 1(4) Ghaziabad.
 ACIT, Central Circle-22, New Delhi, Vs. M/sSatnam International P. Ltd., 201, Vipps Centre, 2, Community Complex, Masjid Moth, G.K. II, New Delhi

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-40(3), Civic Centre, New Delhi 110 002. vs M/s. Mannat Motors (India), 22, Dudial Apartment, Pitampura, Delhi 110 088.
June, 24th 2019
       IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
              DELHI BENCHES "A": DELHI

  BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
                     AND
  SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
                  ITA.No.3159/Del./2016
                Assessment Year 2011-2012

                                 M/s. Mannat Motors
The Income Tax Officer,          (India), 22, Dudial
Ward-40(3), Civic Centre,   vs., Apartment, Pitampura,
New Delhi ­ 110 002.             Delhi ­ 110 088.
                                 PAN AAEFM1539Q
       (Appellant)                       (Respondent)
                 C.O.No.81/Del./2019
                     Arising out of
   ITA.No.3159/Del./2016 - Assessment Year 2011-2012

M/s. Mannat Motors
(India), 22, Dudial              The Income Tax Officer,
Apartment, Pitampura,       vs., Ward-40(3), Civic Centre,
Delhi ­ 110 088.                 New Delhi ­ 110 002.
PAN AAEFM1539Q
         (Appellant)                   (Respondent)

              For Revenue : Shri P.V. Gupta, Sr. D.R.
                             Shri Narender Chhillar And
              For Assessee : Shri Ashok Khatter,
                                  Advocates

           Date of Hearing : 10.06.2019
    Date of Pronouncement : 24.06.2019
                                  2
                             ITA.No.3159/Del./2016 & CO.No.81/Del./2019
                                         M/s. Mannat Motors (India), Delhi.



                            ORDER


PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.


           The Departmental Appeal and Cross Objection by

Assessee are directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-14,

New Delhi, Dated 29.03.2016, for the A.Y. 2011-2012.


2.         We have heard the Learned Representatives of

both the parties and perused the findings of the authorities

below.


3.         The Department has filed the appeal on the

following grounds :


     "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law

     CIT(A) has erred in


 1. Deleting the addition of Rs.82.30 lacs out of total

     addition of Rs.97.39 lacs made by AO on account of

     disallowance of Sundry Creditors as the assessee had

     failed to prove the genuineness, creditworthiness and

     identity of the creditors.
                                   3
                                ITA.No.3159/Del./2016 & CO.No.81/Del./2019
                                            M/s. Mannat Motors (India), Delhi.


 2. Admitting the additional evidence ignoring the report

       submitted by A.O., wherein he had stated that sufficient

       cause, which prevented assessee to file documentary

       evidences during assessment proceedings to prove

       creditors, has not been shown by him during appellate

       stage, which is incontravention of Rule 46A of IT Rules

       1962."


4.          The Assessee has filed the Cross Objections on

the following grounds :


     "1.That the CIT (A) has erred, on facts and in law, in

       confirming the addition amounting to Rs.15.09 lacs

       without appreciating that :-


           (i) the Assessing Officer has added Rs.97.39 lacs

                under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961

                (`the Act"), being transactions out of the books

                without appreciating the fact that the said

                information has already been provided in the

                books of accounts and financial statements of

                the Assessee.
                                 4
                              ITA.No.3159/Del./2016 & CO.No.81/Del./2019
                                          M/s. Mannat Motors (India), Delhi.


         (ii) the CIT (A) has erred, on facts and in law, in not

              adjudicating the legal issue raised by the

              Appellant regarding non applicability of section

              69A of the Act".


5.           Briefly the facts of the case are that assessee is a

firm and filed return of income declaring income of

Rs.4,280/-. The A.O. on perusal of the balance-sheet as on

31.03.2010 and 31.03.2011 noted the balance of sundry

creditors shown to be paid of Rs.1,59,01,405/- and

Rs.59,18,103/- respectively. Subsequently sundry debtors

as on 31.03.2010 and 31.03.2011 shown at Rs.97,39,780/-

and Rs. at NIL respectively. It seems the sundry debtors to

the tune of Rs.97,39,780/- were recovered during the period

01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. The assessee was asked to

furnish list of sundry debtors recovered with name and

complete address. The assessee failed to furnish the details.

Hence, the genuineness and creditworthiness of sundry

debtors recovered to the tune of Rs.97,39,780/- remained

unverified    and   claim   of   the    assessee      firm     was     not

established for recovery from sundry debtors. Subsequently
                                  5
                              ITA.No.3159/Del./2016 & CO.No.81/Del./2019
                                          M/s. Mannat Motors (India), Delhi.


the assessee firm has also claimed that sundry creditors to

the    tune    of   Rs.99.83,302/-.         (Rs.1,59,01,405/-            (-)

Rs.59,18,103/-) were paid off during the period 01.04.2010

to    31.03.2011.    During      the     course         of    assessment

proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnished complete

name and address of these paid off creditors and source of

payment with documentary evidence. The assessee failed to

furnished these documents to substantiate the above claim.

The A.O. noted that as per order sheet, assessee was asked

to furnish books of account i.e. Cash Book, Ledger, Bills etc.

for test check. But the same have not been produced.

Therefore, genuineness of        sources of sundry creditors to

the tune of Rs.97,39,780/- which were paid off are

remained unverified. In the absence of the sources of

payment,      the   claim   of        assessee     of        payment     of

Rs.99,83,302/- were paid off during the period seems out of

unexplained money/undisclosed income having with the

assessee during the period. The A.O, therefore, noted that it

is established that assessee firm having undisclosed income

out of which sundry creditors to the tune of Rs.99,83,302/-
                              6
                           ITA.No.3159/Del./2016 & CO.No.81/Del./2019
                                       M/s. Mannat Motors (India), Delhi.


were paid off. Hence, the addition of Rs.99,83.302/- was

made in respect of unexplained/undisclosed money under

section 69A of the I.T. Act to the income of the assessee

firm. The A.O. however, made addition of Rs.97,39,780/- on

account of unexplained sundry creditors.







6.        The addition was challenged before the Ld.

CIT(A). The assessee filed the written submissions along

with documentary evidence to explain the source of

payment to the sundry creditors. The written submissions is

reproduced in the appellate order along with documents

which reads as under :


         "Addition on account of sundry creditors

     The Ld. AO has erred in facts and in law by making an

     addition of Rs.97,39,780/- in respect of unexplained/

     undisclosed money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act,

     1961 used for making payment to creditors.


     The Ld. AO has been provided with the complete

     reconciliation of opening and closing balances of sundry

     creditors and sundry debtors along with copy of
                           7
                       ITA.No.3159/Del./2016 & CO.No.81/Del./2019
                                   M/s. Mannat Motors (India), Delhi.


account of sundry debtors, sundry creditors and their

addresses. AO has failed to issue letters/summons u/s

133(6)   of    the   I.T.Act,    1961        for    independent

confirmations of these balances. During the assessment

proceedings,   bank    account       along     with     complete

narrations has been filed with Ld. AO. The AO had

been provided with confirmations from sundry creditors

which have been accepted by him and not in dispute.

Payment to sundry creditors even is not in dispute.

Addition is in respect of unexplained/undisclosed

money u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961 which is used for

making payment to creditors.


    During the assessment proceedings, appellant has

filed complete detail of foreign debtors recovered

amounting Rs.60,30,839/- in bank along with bank

realisation certificates vide letter dated 19th February

2014. Despite that Ld. AO failed to appreciate the

genuineness     of   the   source       to    the     extent      of

Rs.39,67,850/- withdrawn from Bank out of foreign

debtors recovered and treated the whole amount of
                          8
                       ITA.No.3159/Del./2016 & CO.No.81/Del./2019
                                   M/s. Mannat Motors (India), Delhi.


recoveries from debtors as unexplained/un-disclosed

payment to creditors for the reasons best known to him.

Your Lordship will definitely sense that recovery of

foreign debtors in bank and subsequent withdrawals

from bank for payment to creditors cannot be treated as

unexplained/un-disclosed source by any stretch of

imagination. In the remand report, Ld. AO has accepted

that payments to Chauhan Gasket Industries have

been made through cheques, despite that Ld. AO has

not stated in remand report to give relief to appellant for

the same for the reasons best known to him.

    Your Lordship will appreciate the following facts:

    1. Payment made to sundry creditors through

       account payee cheques :

       Chauhan Gasket Industries           Rs. 8,55,000/-

       Sundermaya Sintered Products
       Pvt. Ltd.,                          Rs. 5,35,000/-.

    Date wise Detail is enclosed herewith for your kind

    perusal (Annexure II).
                            9
                         ITA.No.3159/Del./2016 & CO.No.81/Del./2019
                                     M/s. Mannat Motors (India), Delhi.


2.    M/s. P.S. Sethi & Sons having credit balance of

Rs.7,77,143/- as on 31.03.2010 has been paid off by

return of goods amounting Rs.11,76,637/-. Hence no

cash has 'been paid to them. So addition on account of

payment through unexplained / undisclosed sources is

not justified.

3.    Foreign Debtors are recovered/received in Bank

during Financial Year 2010-2011 to the extent of

Rs.60,30,839/-. Date wise detail along with copy of

Bank Realisation Certificates is enclosed herewith for

your kind perusal (Annexure III).

4.    Cash withdrawn from bank out of funds received

from foreign debtors to pay off the sundry creditors on

various dates amounting Rs.39,67,850/-. Date wise

detail is enclosed herewith for your kind perusal

(Annexure IV).

5.    Cash received from M/s. P.S. Sethi & Sons

amounting Rs.4,10,474/- on various dates. Date wise

detail/Copy      of   Account/Confirmation          quoting     PAN

enclosed herewith for your kind perusal (Annexure I).
                          10
                       ITA.No.3159/Del./2016 & CO.No.81/Del./2019
                                   M/s. Mannat Motors (India), Delhi.


      Apart from above complete list of debtors/advances

recovered during the year along with complete addresses

had already been filed during assessment proceedings/

remand proceedings. Hence Ld. AO is not justified while

making the addition on account of un-explained/un-

disclosed source of payment. However few of the

confirmations are enclosed herewith for your kind

perusal as below:

      Cash received from M/s. S. M. Auto Agencies 817,

Chhota Bazaar, Vidya Market, Kashmiri Gate, New Delhi

- 110006 amounting Rs.5,75,000/- on various dates.

Date wise detail/Copy of Account/Confirmation quoting

PAN enclosed herewith for your kind perusal (Annexure

V).


       Cash received from M/s. Amber Auto Traders C/o

Mr. Mukesh Dua B-1/276, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi -

110064 amounting Rs.5,65,000/- on various dates. Date

wise detail/Copy of Account/Confirmation quoting PAN

enclosed herewith for your kind perusal (Annexure VI).
                             11
                          ITA.No.3159/Del./2016 & CO.No.81/Del./2019
                                      M/s. Mannat Motors (India), Delhi.


     Cash received from M/s. Gemini Auto Traders C/o

Ashok Kawatra A-4/425, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi -

110064 amounting Rs.5,55,000/- on various dates. Date

wise detail/Copy of Account/Confirmation quoting PAN

enclosed herewith for your kind perusal (Annexure VII).

    Cash received from M/s. Oriental Auto Traders C/o

765/108, Amit motor Market, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi -

110006 amounting Rs.3,74,000/- on various dates. Date

wise detail/Copy of Account/Confirmation quoting PAN

enclosed herewith for your kind perusal (Annexure VIII).

 Your    Lordship    is     requested        to     kindly      issue

letters/summons u/s 133 (6) to above parties for the

independent confirmations or send back it to Ld. AO for

further verification of these documents.


  Despite making all the efforts, appellant has not been

able to arrange few of the confirmations as business of

appellant has been closed down. During the captioned

year due to worldwide slow down, appellant was facing

acute problem of cancellation of its sale orders which

consequently forced the appellant to cancel the purchase
                               12
                           ITA.No.3159/Del./2016 & CO.No.81/Del./2019
                                       M/s. Mannat Motors (India), Delhi.


orders and requested the suppliers to refund back the

advance. Appellant had to make lot of efforts to get the

refund from the suppliers thus appellant was not in

cordial     relations   with        suppliers    and     hence       all

confirmations     could   not       be   arranged.      During      the

captioned year turnover of appellant has gone down

substantially as tabulated down :


                           AY 2010-2011             AY 2011-2012
                           (Amount in Rs.)         (Amount in Rs.)

 Sales                  1,29,67,553/-                 15,43,192/-

 Sundry Debtors           97,39,780/-                      -NIL-

 Sundry Creditors 1,59,01,405/-                       59,88,104/-

          From above table it is clear that the business of

 appellant has gone down substantially during the

 captioned year and as of now business of appellant has

 closed down completely with no turnover in FY 2014-

 2015 & 2015-16.


          Your Lordship is requested to take kind note of

 the fact that the debtors/advances have been accepted

 by Department in earlier years hence addition on
                         13
                      ITA.No.3159/Del./2016 & CO.No.81/Del./2019
                                  M/s. Mannat Motors (India), Delhi.


account of its recovery in current year cannot be

justified. The receipt of cash from various parties was

the receipt against the opening debit balance appearing

in the name of the said parties. The encashment of an

asset being the opening balance of sundry debtors /

advances during the year under reference has wrongly

been interpreted by the Ld. AO so as to hold that the

undisclosed income is introduced by the appellant in the

books of account through that source. The appellant has

duly explained the debit balance in the name of various

parties during assessment proceedings vide copy of

accounts filed before Ld. AO, which is not in dispute. In

any case the encashment of already declared asset

cannot be treated as the introduction of undisclosed

income in the books of account as no unexplained credit

is made in the books of the appellant and therefore the

addition of Rs.97,39,780/- may kindly be deleted.


    Moreover for making addition u/s 69 A of the Act,

grounds relied upon by Ld. AO are vague and absurd.

The Ld. AO has not observed the basic condition of
                           14
                        ITA.No.3159/Del./2016 & CO.No.81/Del./2019
                                    M/s. Mannat Motors (India), Delhi.


addition u/s 69 A i.e. "Not Recorded in the Books of

Account."


    Section 69 A of the Act reads as under :


    "Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be

the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable

article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article

is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained

by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no

explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the

money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the

explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the

Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of

the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be

deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial

year."


    Hence it is clear from the bare reading of section

69A of the Act that explanation can be sought by

Assessing Officer only in a case where such

money, bullion, jewellery and valuable article etc.
                         15
                      ITA.No.3159/Del./2016 & CO.No.81/Del./2019
                                  M/s. Mannat Motors (India), Delhi.


has not been recorded in books of account. For

making addition under this section the money should

not have been recorded in the books of account as

contrary to the case of appellant where every single

penny is properly recorded in books of account. Hence

grounds of addition made by Ld. AO are vague and

absurd and addition made by Ld. AO is liable to be

deleted.


   Moreover, the captioned addition does not find any

place in section 68 even as it is well established fact

that cash credits cannot be on account of trading

receipts source of which has been accepted in earlier

years. Receipt from Debtors/advances is a trading

receipt not the cash credits in the books of the

appellant. These can be treated as cash credits only in

the circumstances if purchases etc. have been made out

of such cash credits. Your Lordship will appreciate that

the recoveries from debtors/advance have not been

utilised to make purchases/expenses etc. Instead they

have been utilized to pay off old credit balances
                           16
                        ITA.No.3159/Del./2016 & CO.No.81/Del./2019
                                    M/s. Mannat Motors (India), Delhi.


not claimed as expenditure anywhere in books of

accounts in the captioned year.


    Hon'ble Hyderabad Bench of ITAT observed in SB

Steels Ltd. Versus ACIT as under :


"The AO and CIT(A) wrongly were of the opinion that cash

receipts can be treated as cash credits but, trade receipts in

cash are not prohibited under the law and only when

payments are made in cash towards purchase there are

provisions to disallow the amount. It is an established fact

that only cash credits can be considered u/s 68, but, not

trade receipts. In the present case, the amounts received by

assessee are not cash credits but the same were recovery

from the debtors/advances, which are available in the books

of account. Since assessee furnished details of debtors and

also the entries made in the books of account, we are of the

opinion that both the AO and the CIT(A) have erred in

considering recoveries from deposits as cash credits. The

corresponding sales in earlier years have been accepted, as

there is no dispute with reference to the entries in the books
                                     17
                                  ITA.No.3159/Del./2016 & CO.No.81/Del./2019
                                              M/s. Mannat Motors (India), Delhi.


       of account in any of the earlier years. Therefore, we are of

       the view that the principles laid down for invoking

       provisions of section 68 cannot be applied to the trade

       recoveries made by assessee during the year.


       (Copy of Judgment enclosed herewith for your kind

       perusal)


       Hon'ble Delhi Bench of ITAT observed in ITO versus Atul

       Kumar Mittal as under :


       "In our opinion when the debtor was considered genuine at

       the end of the preceding year, the receipt from the said

       debtor during the year under consideration cannot be

       treated as bogus. We therefore, are of the view that the Ld.

       CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition."


6.1.        The     Ld.   CIT(A)      referred     the     above      written

statement and documents to the A.O. for his comments and

for filing the remand report. The A.O. filed the remand

report    and     objected   to     the    admission        of    additional

evidences. The remand report is reproduced in the appellate
                              18
                           ITA.No.3159/Del./2016 & CO.No.81/Del./2019
                                       M/s. Mannat Motors (India), Delhi.







order in which the A.O. has submitted that assessee has not

filed any new evidence even in the appellate proceedings,

therefore, addition deserves to be upheld. The A.O. also

stated that assessee in support of contention that sundry

creditors were paid off out of funds realized from the debtors

during the year, has filed reconciliation statement along

with copy of print-out of ledger account of sundry creditors

and debtors with addresses of sundry debtors and creditors

which were also filed at assessment stage. It was stated that

mere filing of the unconfirmed ledger account would not

prove genuineness and creditworthiness of the sundry

creditors and debtors. The A.O. also commented upon the

export sales made by assessee firm and realization of the

amount and ultimately submitted that since assessee has

not filed any fresh evidence at appellate proceedings,

therefore, addition may be confirmed.


6.2.      The remand report filed by the A.O. was provided

to the assessee for comments in which the assessee

reiterated that A.O. has not commented anything on the

facts and evidences submitted by the assessee vide letter
                                19
                             ITA.No.3159/Del./2016 & CO.No.81/Del./2019
                                         M/s. Mannat Motors (India), Delhi.


dated 26.10.2015 which reflects that A.O. has nothing to

say on the issue.


6.3.        The Ld. CIT(A) considering the material on record

in the light of submissions of the assessee, remand report

deleted addition of Rs.82,30,000/- and sustained the

addition of Rs.15,09,000/-. The findings of the Ld. CIT(A)

are reproduced as under :


            "I have considered the findings & Remand Report

       of the Ld. AO, the submissions & comments on the

       Remand Report given by the Ld. AR of the appellant as

       well as the judicial pronouncements of the higher

       appellate authorities and the Hon'ble Courts. On

       perusal of records and submissions it is observed that

       the Ld. AR had filed documentary evidences in respect

       of the recovery of Bad debts, withdrawals, payment

       through cheques and return of goods and justified the

       payment made to the creditors of Rs.82.30 lacs out of

       the addition of Rs.97.39 lacs made by the Ld. AO. It is a

       fact on record that the sundry creditors and debtors

       were accepted by the department in earlier AYs & the
                                 20
                              ITA.No.3159/Del./2016 & CO.No.81/Del./2019
                                          M/s. Mannat Motors (India), Delhi.


     payments to the creditors during the year under

     consideration is from subsequent withdrawals from the

     bank after the/debtors recovery. But the Ld. AR has not

     substantiated the payment of Rs. 15.09 lacs to the

     creditors.


          In view of the above discussion the addition of

     Rs.15.09 lacs is confirmed and the addition of Rs.82.30

     lacs( 97.39-15.09) is deleted. Hence, the grounds of

     appeal are partly allowed."


7.        The Revenue is in appeal challenging the deletion

of substantial addition of Rs.82,30,000/- and Assessee is in

Cross Objection challenging the confirmation of addition of

Rs.15,09,000/-.


8.        The Ld. D.R. relied upon the Order of the A.O.

and submitted that assessee has not filed any evidence

before A.O. to prove genuineness of the payment to the

creditors. The Ld. D.R. also submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)

has admitted the additional evidences in contravention of

Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules.
                              21
                           ITA.No.3159/Del./2016 & CO.No.81/Del./2019
                                       M/s. Mannat Motors (India), Delhi.


9.        On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the

Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the Ld.

CIT(A) and submitted that since the Ld. CIT(A) called for the

remand report from the A.O. and examined the issue in the

light of material on record, therefore, addition has been

correctly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). He has further submitted

that Ld. CIT(A) should not have sustained even the part

addition because Section 69A would not apply to the case of

the assessee as all the transactions are recorded in the

books of account of the assessee.


10.       We have considered the rival submissions. The

A.O. noted in the assessment order that there are balances

of sundry creditors in preceding assessment year as well as

in assessment year under appeal. It is also noted that

assessee has paid substantial amount to the sundry

creditors in assessment year under appeal. The A.O. also

noted that assessee has sundry debtors in earlier year. It is

also noted in the assessment order that assessee recovered

the amounts from the sundry debtors in assessment year

under appeal which was paid to the sundry creditors.
                             22
                          ITA.No.3159/Del./2016 & CO.No.81/Del./2019
                                      M/s. Mannat Motors (India), Delhi.


Learned Counsel for the Assessee pointed-out that in earlier

years sundry debtors and creditors have not been disputed

by the Revenue Department, therefore, genuineness of the

transaction of earlier year cannot be disputed. There is no

explanation to that effect by the Ld. D.R. Whatever

transactions were conducted in earlier year could not be

subject matter of dispute in assessment year under appeal.

Since there were debtors in earlier years, who paid the

amount to assessee in assessment year under appeal, there

could not be any reason to disbelieve the explanation of

assessee. The A.O. instead of considering the addition on

account of payment to the sundry creditors, made the

addition on account of amount received from sundry

debtors. The Ld. CIT(A) in appellate proceedings forwarded

the written submissions of the assessee which is supported

by facts and evidences. The written submissions of the

assessee is reproduced above which clearly satisfy that part

of the payments have been made to the sundry creditors

through account payee cheques and in other cases also no

cash transactions have been conducted. The detailed
                              23
                           ITA.No.3159/Del./2016 & CO.No.81/Del./2019
                                       M/s. Mannat Motors (India), Delhi.


explanation of assessee was referred to the A.O. for his

comments, on which, no adverse comments have been

offered by the A.O. in the remand report. The assessee filed

evidences to prove creditors are paid through banking

channel. Debts are recovered through banking channel and

cash which are recorded in books of account. Same entries

are supported by confirmation of parties. Since the assessee

filed complete details at assessment stage as per remand

report of the A.O. as well as filed details along with

evidences at appellate proceedings to explain that assessee

recovered the amounts from sundry debtors and paid off to

the sundry creditors, the Ld. CIT(A) in proper perspective

based on evidence on record, correctly came to the finding

that assessee explained payment to the creditors of

Rs.82,30,000/-. The Ld. CIT(A) also gave specific finding

that assessee has not been able to substantiate the payment

of Rs.15,09,000/- to the creditors. Therefore, we do not find

any infirmity in the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the

substantial addition and confirming part addition against

the assessee. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in
                              24
                           ITA.No.3159/Del./2016 & CO.No.81/Del./2019
                                       M/s. Mannat Motors (India), Delhi.


the case of Kuldeep Industrial Corporation 209 CTR 400

observed that "with reference to Rule-46A of the I.T. Rules,

when A.O. was present before Ld. CIT(A) and did not raise

any objection, Rule 46-A would not be violated." In the

present case, the A.O. filed remand report before Ld. CIT(A)

in which he has not raised any objection with regard to

admission of additional evidences because according to A.O.

assessee has not filed any new evidence even in appellate

proceedings. The A.O. merely contended that addition on

merit may be confirmed. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, did not

violate Rule 46A of I.T. Rules. Even during the course of

arguments, the Ld. D.R. was not able to explain as to how

Rule 46A have been violated in the present case. The Ld.

CIT(A) on the basis of all the documentary evidences filed on

record found that assessee has recovered the amount from

the debtors and payments have been made through cheques

and   further   made    payments        to    the     creditors       of

Rs.82,30,000/- have been substantiated by the assessee

through evidences on record. The finding of fact recorded by

the Ld. CIT(A) have not been rebutted through any evidence
                                25
                           ITA.No.3159/Del./2016 & CO.No.81/Del./2019
                                       M/s. Mannat Motors (India), Delhi.


or material on record. The Ld. CIT(A) was, therefore,

justified in deleting the addition of Rs.82,30,000/- in the

matter.   However,   assessee        failed   to   substantiate     the

payment of Rs.15,09,000/- to the creditors, therefore,

addition to that extent is correctly made by the Ld. CIT(A).

Since no evidence of payment of Rs.15,09,000/- to the

creditors have been produced before us also, therefore,

there is no question of accepting the contention of assessee

that Section 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 would not apply in the

case of the assessee. Considering the totality of the facts

and circumstances of the case in the light of finding of fact

recorded by the Ld. CIT(A), we do not find any infirmity in

the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the part addition and

confirming the addition of Rs.15,09,000/-. We, confirm the

Order of the Ld. CIT(A). Resultantly, the Departmental

Appeal and Cross Objections of the Assessee are dismissed.


11.       In the result, appeal of the Department and Cross

Objection of the Assessee are dismissed.
                               26
                           ITA.No.3159/Del./2016 & CO.No.81/Del./2019
                                       M/s. Mannat Motors (India), Delhi.


          Order pronounced in the open Court.


 Sd/-                                      Sd/-
(PRASHANT MAHARISHI)                      (BHAVNESH SAINI)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                         JUDICIAL MEMBER

Delhi, Dated 24th June, 2019

VBP/-
Copy to

1.   The appellant
2.   The respondent
3.   CIT(A) concerned
4.   CIT concerned
5.   D.R. ITAT "A" Bench
6.   Guard File

                       //By Order//



           Asst. Registrar : ITAT : Delhi Benches :
                             Delhi.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2019 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Careers

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions