Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, AGRA
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
(िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / (िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2013-14) ACIT, Circle-1, M/s. Pankaj Advertising Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Gwalior. Parakh Home, Bachchraj Ka Bada, Vs. Sarafa Bazar, Lashkar, Gwalior. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AACCM-2597-D (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava, - Ld. Sr. DR ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh. Mahesh Agarwal, CA – Ld. AR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 23-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeals by revenue for Assessment Years (AY) 2010-11 & 2013-14 arise out of separate orders of first appellate authority. First, we take up appeal for AY 2010-11 which arises out of an order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Gwalior [CIT(A)] on 26- 11-2019 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 28-03-2013. Having heard rival submissions, the appeal is disposed-off as under.
In the assessment order, Ld. AO observed that there was difference in sundry creditor balances for Rs.232.04 Lacs which is tabulated on Page No.4 of the assessment order. The same was added to the income of the assessee u/s 68 for want of any satisfactory response from the assessee.
During first appeal, the assessee’s submissions were subjected to remand proceedings. The assessee’s further submissions reconciling the balances / rejoinder were subjected to second remand proceedings. However, Ld. AO failed to make any worthwhile enquiry even during considerable period of time i.e., 8 months. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that Ld. AO only compared closing balances without making adjustment in opening balances. The difference to the extent of Rs.149.78 Lacs was there in the opening balance and therefore, the same could not be added in this year. Another finding was that difference in sundry creditors was offered to tax u/s 41(1) in subsequent years. The Ld. CIT(A) rendered factual finding with respect to each of the entity and finally, deleted addition to the extent of Rs.226.36 Lacs against which the revenue is in further appeal before us.
The factual findings as rendered in the impugned order remain uncontroverted before us. It could be seen that substantial difference arose due to difference in opening balances which could not be added u/s 68 for this year. Another fact is that out of remaining difference, the assessee offered said difference to tax in subsequent years u/s 41(1). This being so, the finding of Ld. CIT(A) could not be faulted with. We order so. The appeal stand dismissed.
In AY 2013-14, Ld. AO made similar addition for difference in sundry creditors. During first appeal, the assessee successfully reconciled substantial differences. The adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) is on same lines. Therefore, facts being pari-materia the same, taking the same view, we confirm the adjudication of Ld. CIT(A).
Both the appeals stand dismissed. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.