The ITO, Ward-7(!), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Xtrusion Machinery, Ahmedabad

ITA 1046/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 76669 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-04-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KUREEL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Salary income
• Section: 133(6); 68

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD 0 00 0 0 00 0 , , , , !' !' !' !' # # # #0 00 0 0 00 0 $# $# $# $#, , , , % % % % & & & & BEFORE SHRI D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1046/AHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), AHMADABAD. V/S M/S XTRUSION MACHINERY, 13, MELDI ESTATE, NR. GOTA RAILWAY CROSSING, GOTA, AHMADABAD. PAN: AAAFX0294K (APPELLANT)/ '( (RESPONDENT)/ ) '( APPELLANT BY/ '( * + : SHRI P.L. KUREEL, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY/ ) '( * + : NONE -#!. * /% / DATE OF HEARING : 24-04-2014 012 * /% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25-04-2014 ( 3 3 3 3 )/ ORDER PER SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-XIV, AHMADABAD DATED 28.01.2011. 2. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE RESPONDENT AS SESSEE BY REGISTERED POST WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DUE ON 12.0 3.2014. THE SAME WAS RETURNED BY POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE RE MARKS LEFT ON 13.03.2014. THE BENCH WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE APP EAL OF THE REVENUE CAN BE DISPOSED OFF EX-PARTE QUA THE RESPON DENT ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 1046/AHD/2011 M/S XTRUSION MACHINERY VS. ITO, W-7(1), AHD AY 2005-06 - 2 - THEREFORE, APPEAL IS BEING DISPOSED AFTER CONSIDERI NG THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL: 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS 3,23,953/- MADE U/S 68 BEING UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 2. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS 8,92,896/- BEING UNPROVED SUNDRY CREDITORS VIZ.: A. PERFECT DYE & TOOLS- RS 2,00,000/- B. ROYAL TRADING CO.- RS 2,00,000/- C. SHREEJI ENGINEERING WORKS- RS 3,13,396/- D. VEERKRUPA INDUSTRIES - RS 1,79,500/- 3. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DI RECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DELETING THE AD DITION OF RS 3,23,953/- U/S 68 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR. W E FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITIONS B Y OBSERVING AS UNDER: 2) ASHABEN D MISTRY RS 68756/- SHE HAS FURNISHED DETAILS VIDE LETTER DT. 7-12-2007 . IT IS STATED THAT RS 64000/- HAS BEEN GIVEN ON DIFFERE NT DATES AND RS 4756/- IS ACCRUSED AS INTEREST. SINCE SHE HAS STATED FURTHER IN HER SUBMISSION THAT AS SH E HAD NO TAXABLE INCOME, RETURN OF INCOME HAS NOT BEE N FILED. AS SUCH, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS NOT PROVED, HENCE IT IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CRE DIT U/S. 68 OF THE I.T. ACT AND ADDED TO THE TAXABLE INCOME ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO. 1046/AHD/2011 M/S XTRUSION MACHINERY VS. ITO, W-7(1), AHD AY 2005-06 - 3 - 4) FALGUNIBEN P PATENI RS 64,740/- SHE HAS FURTHER STATED IN THE SUBMISSION THAT SHE H AD SALARY INCOME WHICH WAS BELOW TAXABLE LIMIT HENCE RETURN OF INCOME WAS NOT FILED. EXPLANATION IS NOT FOUND CONVINCING AND SATISFACTORY. THEREFORE, CASH CREDIT IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED U/S. 68 OF THE I.T . ACT AND ADDED TO THE TAXABLE INCOME ACCORDINGLY. 5) KAMINIBEN BHAVSAR- RS 42203/- SHE HAS STATED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION THAT THE AMOUNT WAS GIVEN ON DIFFERENT DATES. FURTHER SHE H AS STATED THAT SHE IS NOT FILING RETURN OF INCOME AND NOT HAVING PAN AND NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS IN RESPECT OF CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR AND MODE OF PAYMENT IS ALSO NOT SPECIFIED, THE CASH CREDIT IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED U/S. 68 OF THE I.T. ACT AND ADDED TO THE TAXABLE INCOME ACCORDINGLY. 6) LALITABEN PATNI- RS 1.00,000/-: LETTER DT. 3-12-2007 WAS ISSUED U/S. 133(6) AND THE SAME HAS BEEN RETURNED UNSERVED. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN PAN AND NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS IN RESPECT OF CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOS ITOR AND MODE OF PAYMENT IS ALSO NOT SPECIFIED, THE CASH CREDIT IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED U/S. 68 OF THE I.T . ACT AND ADDED TO THE TAXABLE INCOME ACCORDINGLY. 8) SHILABEN U. SWAMINARAYAN- RS 48,324/-: SHE HAS FURNISHED DETAILS STATING THAT RS 15,000/- CASH, RS 30,000/- CHEQUE AND RS 3324/- ACCRUED AS INTEREST. HOWEVER SHE IS NOT ASSESSED TO TAX AND NOT FILING RETURN OF INCOME. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN PAN AND NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS IN RESPECT OF CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR AND MODE OF PAYMENT IS ALSO NOT SPECIFIED, THE CASH CREDIT IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED U/S. 68 OF THE I.T. ACT AND ADDED TO THE TAXABLE INCOME ACCORDINGLY. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITIONS BY OBS ERVING AS UNDER: I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE OBSERVATIONS OF T HE A.O., SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCES FILED BY THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS ITA NO. 1046/AHD/2011 M/S XTRUSION MACHINERY VS. ITO, W-7(1), AHD AY 2005-06 - 4 - ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED A.R. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. THE APPELLANT HAS ELABORATELY EXPLAINED THE BASIC F ACTS OF THE CASE WHICH WERE LARGELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ADDITIO NS IN QUESTION. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, IT IS SEEN THAT THERE ARE TWO PARTNERS OF THE APPELLANT FIRM AND IN VIEW OF T HE DISPUTES BETWEEN THEM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE LYING WITH ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE APPELLANT FIRM WERE PLAC ED UNDER THE COURT ORDER FOR NOT REMOVING IT FROM THE FACTOR Y PREMISES IN SPITE OF WHICH THE SAID PARTNER HAD REMOVED THE SAME AND TOOK IT INTO HIS POSSESSION. THE SAID PARTNER NEVE R ATTENDED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELL ANT FIRM AND HENCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT PRODUCED L EADING TO VARIOUS ADDITIONS MOSTLY IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT THEREOF OR INABILITY ON PART OF THE PARTNER WHO ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS TO FILE ANY EXPLANATION BE FORE THE A.O. NONETHELESS, IT IS SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT O RDER THAT THE A.O. HAD MADE ENQUIRIES AND GATHERED INFORMATIO N DIRECTLY FROM THE PARTIES AS DISCUSSED IN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER. ASHABEN MISTRY RS 68,756/- IN THIS CASE, THE NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT ISSU ED BY THE A.O. WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE SAID PARTY. THE SAID PARTY HAS ALSO SENT HER REPLY DIRECTLY TO THE A.O. CONFIR MING THE DEPOSIT KEPT WITH THE APPELLANT FIRM ON DIFFERENT D ATES AND THAT INTEREST OF RS 4,756/- HAS ACCRUED AS APPEARIN G FROM THE OBSERVATION OF THE A.O. SHE HAS ALSO STATED TH AT SINCE SHE DOES NOT HAVE ANY TAXABLE INCOME, NO RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FILED. IN VIEW OF THE SAID EVIDENCES, I A M OF THE OPINION THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE PARTY IS NOT IN DI SPUTE SINCE THE NOTICE WAS SERVED AND REPLY HAS ALSO BEEN FILED BY THE PARTY. FURTHER, SINCE THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN GIVEN ON DIFFERENT DATES AND SINCE THE PARTY IS ALSO RECEIVI NG INTEREST THE ADDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND IS THUS DELETED. FALGUNIBEN PATNI- RS 64,740/- THE SAID PARTY IS WIFE OF ONE OF THE PARTNER OF THE APPELLANT FIRM. THE NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT ISSUED BY THE A.O. WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE SAID PARTY. THE SAID PART Y HAS ALSO SENT HER REPLY DIRECTLY TO THE A.O. CONFIRMING THE DEPOSIT KEPT WITH THE APPELLANT FIRM ON DIFFERENT DATES. S HE HAS ALSO STATED THAT SINCE SHE HAS SALARY INCOME AND SINCE S HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY TAXABLE INCOME, NO PERSONAL BOOKS OF A CCOUNT HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED AND NO RETURN OF INCOME HAS BE EN FILED. FURTHER, ON PERUSAL OF THE CONFIRMATION FUR NISHED BY THE PARTY, IT IS EVIDENT THAT SHE HAS GIVEN THE AMO UNT OF RS 36,000/- ON DIFFERENT DATES DURING THE YEAR. THAT APART, SHE IS ALSO RECEIVING RENT INCOME FROM THE FIRM AS WELL AS INTEREST ITA NO. 1046/AHD/2011 M/S XTRUSION MACHINERY VS. ITO, W-7(1), AHD AY 2005-06 - 5 - ON CREDIT BALANCE. ACCORDINGLY, IN THIS CASE ALSO, THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION AS WELL AS CREDITWORTHINESS STAND REASONABLY ESTABLISHED AND H ENCE IN MY OPINION THE ADDITION IS NOT WARRANTED AND ACCORD INGLY DELETED. KAMINIBEN BHAVSAR RS 42,203/-: THE SAID PARTY IS SISTER OF ONE OF THE PARTNER OF T HE APPELLANT FIRM. THE NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT ISSUED BY T HE A.O. WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE SAID PARTY. THE SAID PART Y HAS ALSO SENT HER REPLY DIRECTLY TO THE A.O. CONFIRMING THE DEPOSIT KEPT WITH THE APPELLANT FIRM ON DIFFERENT DATES. S HE HAS ALSO STATED THAT SINCE SHE DOES NOT HAVE ANY TAXABLE INC OME, NO RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FILED. FURTHER, ON PERUS AL OF THE CONFIRMATION FURNISHED BY THE PARTY, IT IS EVIDENT THAT SHE HAS GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF RS 39,000/- ON DIFFERENT DATES DURING THE YEAR AND IS ALSO RECEIVING INTEREST ON CREDIT B ALANCE. ACCORDINGLY, IN THIS CASE ALSO, THE IDENTITY, GENUI NENESS OF TRANSACTION AS WELL AS CREDITWORTHINESS STAND REASO NABLY ESTABLISHED AND HENCE IN MY OPINION THE ADDITION IS NOT WARRANTED AND ACCORDINGLY DELETED. LALITABEN PATNI RS 1,00,000/- THE SAID PARTY IS MOTHER OF ONE OF THE PARTNER OF T HE APPELLANT FIRM. THE NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT ISSUED BY THE A.O. WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE SAID PARTY. THE SAID PARTY HAS ALSO SENT HER REPLY DIRECTLY TO THE A.O. CONFIRMING THE DEPOSIT KEPT WITH THE APPELLANT FIRM ON DIFFERE NT DATES. SHE HAS ALSO STATED THAT SHE IS 75 YEARS OLD AND TH E SOURCE OF THE SAID DEPOSIT WAS FAMILY SAVINGS AND INTEREST EARNED SINCE HER HUSBAND WAS A LABOUR WELFARE COMMISSIONER AND RETIRED IN 1982. FURTHER, SINCE SHE DOES NOT HAVE ANY TAXABLE INCOME, NO RETURN INCOME HAS BEEN FILED. O N THE BASIS OF THE SAID FACTS AND THE COPY OF REPLY SENT TO THE A.O. DIRECTLY BY THE SAID PARTY, THE OBSERVATION OF THE A.O. THAT THE NOTICE WAS RETURNED UNSERVED AND NO REPLY HAS B EEN FILED BY THE SAID PARTY PRIME FACIE APPEARS TO BE INCORRE CT. ACCORDINGLY, IN THIS CASE ALSO, THE IDENTITY, GENUI NENESS OF TRANSACTION AS WELL AS CREDITWORTHINESS STAND REASO NABLY ESTABLISHED AND HENCE IN MY OPINION THE ADDITION IS NOT WARRANTED AND ACCORDINGLY DELETED. SHILEBEN SWAMINARAYAN RS 48,324/- THE SAID PARTY IS SISTER OF ONE OF THE PARTNER OF T HE APPELLANT FIRM. THE NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT ISSUED BY THE A.O. WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE SAID PARTY. THE SAID PART Y HAS ALSO SENT HER REPLY DIRECTLY TO THE A.O. CONFIRMING THE DEPOSIT ITA NO. 1046/AHD/2011 M/S XTRUSION MACHINERY VS. ITO, W-7(1), AHD AY 2005-06 - 6 - KEPT WITH THE APPELLANT FIRM ON DIFFERENT DATES. S HE HAS ALSO THE SOURCE OF INCOME AND THAT SINCE SHE DOES NOT HA VE ANY TAXABLE INCOME, NO RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FIELD. THAT APART, SHE HAS ALSO FURNISHED HER BANK STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEPOSIT OF RS 30,000/- GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT FI RM BY CHEQUE. THE AMOUNT GIVEN IN CASH IS ONLY RS 15,000 /- DURING THE YEAR AND SHE IS ALSO RECEIVING INTEREST ON CREDIT BALANCE. CONSIDERING THE SAID FACTS, THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION AS WELL AS CREDITWORTHIN ESS STAND REASONABLY ESTABLISHED AND HENCE IN MY OPINION THE ADDITION IS NOT WARRANTED AND ACCORDINGLY DELETED. ON PERUSAL OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE A.O. IT APPEA RS THAT THE A.O. HAS NEITHER GIVEN ANY FACTS REGARDING UNSERVED LETTERS ISSUED BY HIM U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT FROM VARIOUS P ARTIES NOR THE DETAILS RECEIVED BY HIM DIRECTLY FROM THE DEPOS ITORS INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT CATEGORICALL Y ASKED FOR THE SAME. KEEPING IN VIEW THE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTNERS OF THE APPELLANT FIRM AND THE PARTIES WHO HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO THE A.O.S NOTICE BEING FAMILY MEMBERS AND FRIENDS OF THE OTHER PARTNER NAMELY JIGNESH PARMAR WHO DID NOT ATTEND EVEN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE CON TENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE SAID LETTERS WERE NOT ACC EPTED BY THEM INTENTIONALLY AND THAT THE A.O. COULD HAVE VER IFIED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ADDRESS BY SENDING HIS INSPECTOR APPEARS TO BE PLAUSIBLE. THUS, KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALIT Y OF THE FACTS AND MY FINDINGS AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE, THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS 3,23,953/- IS HEREBY DELETED AN D ADDITION OF RS 1,46,940/- STANDS CONFIRMED. 6. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT HE IS RELYING ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. DR COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY SPECIFIC MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY GOOD AND JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). THE SAME IS CONFIRMED AND GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS 8,92,8 96/- BEING UNPROVED SUNDRY CREDITORS. ITA NO. 1046/AHD/2011 M/S XTRUSION MACHINERY VS. ITO, W-7(1), AHD AY 2005-06 - 7 - 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 2) PERFECT DYES & TOOLS RS 2,00,000/- INQUIRY LETTER 3.12.2007 U/S. 133(6) HAS BEEN SERVE D BY SPEED POST BUT NO REPLY HAS BEEN RECEIVED TILL D ATE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO FURNISH COPY OF CONTRA ACCOUNT, TO STATE NATURE AND AGE OF SUCH CREDIT. HENCE IT IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED SUNDRY CREDIT U/ S. 68 OF THE I.T. ACT AND ADDED TO THE TAXABLE INCOME ACCORDINGLY. 3) ROYAL TRADING CO. RS. 2,00,000/-: DETAILS RECEIVED VIDE LETTER DT. 29.12.2007. AS PER COPY OF CONTRA ACCOUNT DEBIT BALANCE IS RS 130/- ON LY WHEREAS AS PER LEDGER ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE IT IS SHOWN AT RS 2,00,000/-. HENCE BALAN CE OF RS 1,98,870/- REMAINED UNEXPLAINED WHICH IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 O THE I. T. ACT AND ADDED TO THE TAXABLE INCOME ACCORDINGLY. 4) SHREEJI ENGINEERING WORKS RS 313396/-: IN RESPONSE TO LETTER DT. 2.12.2007 DETAILS FURNISH ED VIDE LETTER DT. 11.12.2007. AS PER COPY OF CONTRA ACCOUNT OUTSTANDING BALANCE IS RS 91480/- WHILE AS PER LEDGER ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE, IT IS RS 313396/-. AS SUCH DIFFERENCE OF RS 2,21,916/- REMAINED UNEXPLAINED WHICH IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINE D CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT AND ADDED TO THE TAXA BLE INCOME ACCORDINGLY. 5) VEERKRUPA INDUSTRIES: - RS 1,79,500/- INQUIRY LETTER DT. 3.12.2007 U/S 133(6) HAS BEEN SERVED BY SPEED POST BUT NO REPLY HAS BEEN RECEIVED TILL DATE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO FURNISH COP Y OF CONTRA ACCOUNT, TO STATE NATURE AND AGE OF SUCH CRE DIT. HENCE IT IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED SUNDRY CREDIT U/ S. 68 OF THE I.T. ACT AND ADDED TO THE TAXABLE INCOME ACCORDINGLY. 9. ON APPEAL, LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY O BSERVING AS UNDER: ITA NO. 1046/AHD/2011 M/S XTRUSION MACHINERY VS. ITO, W-7(1), AHD AY 2005-06 - 8 - I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE EVI DENCES PLACED ON RECORD. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, THE PART Y-WISE FINDINGS ARE AS UNDER: PERFECT DYES AND TOOLS RS 2,00,000/-: ON PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET OF PREVIOUS YEAR SU BMITTED BY THE APPELLANT, IT IS SEEN THAT THE SAID PARTY DU LY APPEARS IN THE SCHEDULE OF OTHER ADVANCES AND THE OUTSTAN DING BALANCE IS RS 3,55,000/- AS AGAINST WHICH THE BALAN CE DURING THE YEAR IN THE NAME OF THE SAID PARTY IS RS 2,00,0 00/-. THUS, THOUGH THE SAID PARTY HAS NOT RESPONDED TO TH E NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SAID PARTY, NO ADDITION IS WARRANTED IN MY OPINION PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IT AP PEARS TO BE REDUCTION IN OLD BALANCE. THE ADDITION OF RS 2,00, 000/- THUS STAND DELETED. ROYAL TRADING CO. RS. 2,00,000/-: THE A.O. HAS STATED THAT ACCORDING TO THE DETAILS R ECEIVED FROM THE PARTY, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF RS 1,99,87 0/- BETWEEN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE PARTY IN BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT AND AS FURNISHED BY THE PARTY. THERE BEI NG NO OTHER FACT OR EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE A.O . IS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE SAID ADDITION. THE ADDITIO N OF RS 2,00,000/- THUS STANDS CONFIRMED. SHREEJI ENGINEERING WORKS RS 3,13,396/-: ON PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET OF PREVIOUS YEAR SU BMITTED BY THE APPELLANT, IT IS SEEN THAT THE SAID PARTY DU LY APPEARS IN THE SCHEDULE OF CREDITORS FOR GOODS AND THE OU TSTANDING BALANCE IS RS 2,12,994/- AS AGAINST WHICH THE BALAN CE DURING THE YEAR IN THE NAME OF THE SAID PARTY IS RS 3,13,3 96/- AS AGAINST WHICH ACCORDING TO THE A.O., THE CONTRA ACC OUNT FURNISHED BY THE A.O. SHOWS BALANCE OF RS 91,480/-. HOWEVER, SINCE THE A.O. HAS NOT CLARIFIED THE YEAR OF SUCH CONTRA ACCOUNT FURNISHED BY THE PARTY AND CONSIDERI NG THE FACT THAT THE SAID PARTY IS ALSO APPEARING IN THE B ALANCE SHEET OF PREVIOUS YEAR I.E. 2003-04, THE ADDITION OF RS 3 ,13,396/- IS DELETED. VEERKRUPA INDUSTRIES: RS 1,79,500/-: THE A.O. HAS STATED THAT NO REPLY HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT AND HENCE THE ADDITION IS MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. ON PERUSAL OF THE FACTS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE A.O. HAS ONLY RANDOMLY CALLED F OR THE ITA NO. 1046/AHD/2011 M/S XTRUSION MACHINERY VS. ITO, W-7(1), AHD AY 2005-06 - 9 - DETAILS FROM FEW CREDITORS FOR GOODS AND HENCE MERE LY BECAUSE THE PARTY HAS NOT RESPONDED TO THE NOTICE N O ADDITION IS WARRANTED IN ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER MATER IAL MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN THE OTHER CREDITORS ARE ACCEPTED AS GENUINE. ACCORDINGLY, IN MY OPINION THE ADDITION I S NOT JUSTIFIED SINCE THERE MAY BE NUMBER OF REASONS FOR NON- COMPLIANCE ON PART OF THE CREDITOR. THE ADDITION O F RS 1,79,500/- IS THUS DELETED. ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE PARTY WISE FINDINGS, THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS 8,92,896/- IS DELETED AND ADDITION OF RS 2,00,000/- IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. 10. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. HE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY SPECIFIC MISTA KE IN THE ABOVE QUOTED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, WE DO N OT FIND ANY GOOD AND JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). THE SAME IS CONFIRMED AND GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVEN UE IS DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 25 TH OF APRIL, 2014 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (D.K. TYAGI) JUDICIAL MEMBER (N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 25/04/2014 GHANSHYAM MAURYA, SR. P.S.