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

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 28/07/2022, for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The assessee has filed Cross Objections in the aforesaid appeal by the Revenue supporting the order of CIT(A).

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 affording reasonable opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine the additional documents filed by the assessee. Thus, there is violation of Rule 46A.

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 accepted the books of the assessee. During the first appellate proceedings the assessee filed copy of registered agreement pertaining to the transaction of sale of flat to one Kavita Kalani. Part consideration of Rs.2.00 crores was made against the total consideration Rs.4.25 crores. The remaining amount was shown under the head ‘trade creditors’. These very amounts are emanating from the books of the assessee. We find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A), hence, the impugned order warrants no interference. Appeal of Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Consequently, Cross Objections by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous.

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