I.T.O. -12(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ALVESS DEVELOPERS PVT LTD , MUMBAI

The solitary issue raised by the Revenue in appeal assailing the order of CIT(A) deleting addition of Rs.2,36,68,878/- made on account of sundry creditors u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’].

The assessee is a builder and developer. The assessee filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year on 30/09/2014 declaring total income of Rs.4,56,911/-. In scrutiny assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer inter-alia made addition of Rs.2,36,68,878/- in respect of sundry creditors. While making aforesaid addition the Assessing Officer observed that assessee has failed to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of sundry creditors. Against the assessment order dated 28/12/2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, the assessee carried the issue in appeal before CIT(A). Before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee submitted that the sundry creditors represent credit on trade account and furnished the ledger extracts. The CIT(A) after verifying the submissions of the assessee found the same to be in order and deleted the addition. Hence, the present appeal by the Revenue.

Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha representing the Department submits that the CIT(A) deleted the addition after accepting additional evidence and without

On the other hand, Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the books of the assessee are audited and were furnished before the Assessing Officer. The trade creditors are duly reflected in the books of the assessee. The only document that was filed during first appellate proceedings was registered agreement in respect of Kavita Kalani for purchase of flat from the assessee. The sale price as per said agreement is Rs.4.25 crores, out of which Rs.2.00 croes was paid by her towards part consideration. The balance amount of Rs.2.25 crores was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. The copy of the registered agreement was filed to supplement the audited account which were already furnished to the Assessing Officer. The trade creditors are duly reflected in the books of account. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee prayed for dismissing the appeal of Revenue. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee further submits that if the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, the Cross Objections would become infructuous. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed that the Assessing Officer has already given effect to the order of CIT(A) on 22/08/2022.

Both sides heard, orders of authorities below examined. The short prayer made on behalf of the Revenue is violation of Rule 46A. The assessee is in the business of sale and purchase of flats. It is not disputed by the Revenue that assessee had furnished audited accounts before the Assessing Officer. The trade creditors are duly reflected therein. The Assessing Officer has

In the result, appeal by the Revenue and Cross Objections by the assessee are dismissed.

अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 2. ��तवाद�/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु�त(अ)/ The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आयु�त CIT 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आय.अपी.अ�ध., मुबंई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar), ITAT Mumbai