SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

Sri Sunil Mishra, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Sri Sunil Mishra, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Sri Sunil Mishra, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri M.K.Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. M.K.Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue.

It was submitted by ld AR that in the assessment order, the It was submitted by ld AR that in the assessment order, the It was submitted by ld AR that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has taken a stand that in respect of N.K.Bhojani, one of Assessing Officer has taken a stand that in respect of N.K.Bhojani, one of Assessing Officer has taken a stand that in respect of N.K.Bhojani, one of the sundry creditors, the balance as per the accounts of the assessee was the sundry creditors, the balance as per the accounts of the assessee was the sundry creditors, the balance as per the accounts of the assessee was Rs.7,86,391/- and as per the information received from N.K.Bhojani in and as per the information received from N.K.Bhojani in P a g e 1 | 3 response to notice u/s.133(6), the balance was Rs.14,38,563/-. Consequently, the difference of Rs.6,52,166/- had been treated as the suppression of liability by the assessee. It was submitted that before the ld CIT(A), the assessee had submitted that the closing balance shown by the assessee was also Rs.14,38,563/- and the amount of Rs.7,86,391/- was the payment made by the assessee to N.K.Bhujani. It was the submission that the ledger account had also been produced before the ld CIT(A), which showed the total transaction of Rs.22,24,954/-, payment of Rs.7,86,391/- and the closing balance of Rs.14,38,563/-. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) without considering the fact had confirmed the addition as made by the Assessing Officer. Ld A.R. has placed before us copy of the ledger account. It was the prayer that the addition as made by the AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) may be deleted.

In reply, ld CIT DR vehemently supported the order of the AO and ld CIT(A). It was the submission that the assessee has not explained the facts before the AO and ld CIT(A). It was his prayer that the matter be restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the ledger account clearly shows that the assessee has shown closing balance in respect of N.K.Bhojani as Rs.14,36,563/-, which is the exact balance, as has been confirmed by N.K.Bhojani in response to notice u/s.133(6) of the Act. The amount of Rs.7,86,391/- is the payment made by the assessee to P a g e 2 | 3 N.K.Bhojani. This being so, we are of the view that the addition as made by the AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) is unsustainable on the facts and consequently, we delete the same.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 3/11/2022. Sd/- sd/- (Arun Khodpia) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 3/11/2022 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Sarosh Yazdani, N-4/135, IRC Village, Nayapali, Bhubaneswar 2. The Respondent: ACIT, Circle-1(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Rajaswa Vihar, Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A)-, Cuttack 4. Pr.CIT-, Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order