JHALARAM PUROHIT,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

आदेश / O R D E R

In this appeal filed by the assessee, it is aggrieved on sustenance of an addition of �1,19,340/- out of a total Sundry Creditors of �31,78,245/- and sustenance of addition of an �82,840/-

ITA No.2925/Mds/2016 :- 2 -: out of the total unsecured loan of �11,07,190/- by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Chennai in his order dated 29.06.2016.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Sundry Creditors 2. represented credits for purchases and confirmation from the concerned creditor namely M/s. Lavima Textile was filed by the assessee. In so far as disallowance of loan creditor was concerned, ld. Authorised Representative submitted that assessee had filed confirmation from Shri. Jagdish Kumar Jhalaram who had given the loan of sum of �82,840/- to the assessee. As per ld. Authorised Representative disallowances were made for a reason that assessee was unable to provide the PA Number of these persons. According to him, Shri. Jagdish Kumar Jhalaram was having PAN and M/s. Lavima Textile being a trade creditor, assessee could not be compelled to give the PA number.

Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that 3.

additions were agreed by the ld. Authorised Representative before ld. Assessing Officer. As per ld. Departmental Representative this was specifically noted by the ld. Assessing Officer in the remand report

ITA No.2925/Mds/2016 :- 3 -: furnished by him before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). As

per the ld. Departmental Representative, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had rightly confirmed the additions to this extent.

I have considered the rival contentions and perused the 4. orders of the authorities below. No doubt it was mentioned in the remand report dated 25.04.2016 furnished by the ld. Assessing Officer to the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Chennai that ld. Authorised Representative had agreed for the additions. However, the contention of the ld. Authorised Representative, Shri. Gopichand, ITP, is that he had himself appeared before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). As per the ld. Departmental Representative when he signed the note-sheet there was no such sentence therein. Be that as it may, what I find is that assessee had filed confirmation with regard to Shri. Jagdish Kumar Jhalaram and had specifically brought to my attention that the PAN allotted to the said person was ANBPJ 5096P.

Assessee has also filed confirmation from M/s. Lavima Textile for trade credit balance of �1,19,340/-. The credit balance came in to the books of the assessee on account of purchase made from the said party which was never doubted by the Revenue. In the circumstances, I

ITA No.2925/Mds/2016 :- 4 -: am of the opinion that additions ought not have sustained by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).These additions are deleted.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 5.

Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 7th day of March , 2017, at Chennai.