, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI . , [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT M EMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO. 2925/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-2008. JHALARAM PUROHIT, 130, NEW 269, MINT STREET, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI 600 079 [ PAN ADPPJ 0999K] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2) CHENNAI. ( !' / APPELLANT) ( #$!' /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. M. GOPICHAND, ITP. /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. R. CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR, JCIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 01-03-2017 !' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07-03-2017 % / O R D E R IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS AGGRIE VED ON SUSTENANCE OF AN ADDITION OF @1,19,340/- OUT OF A TOTAL SUNDRY CREDITORS OF @31,78,245/- AND SUSTENANCE OF ADDITIO N 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. 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SUNDRY CREDITORS 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 CREDITO R WAS CONCERNED, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE H AD 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 PER SONS. 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. 3. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMIT TED THAT ADDITIONS WERE AGREED BY THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESE NTATIVE BEFORE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. AS PER LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE 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. CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADD ITIONS TO THIS EXTENT. 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. NO DOUBT IT WAS ME NTIONED 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 ADDITI ONS. HOWEVER, THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, SH RI. GOPICHAND, ITP, IS THAT HE HAD HIMSELF APPEARED BEFORE LD. COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). AS PER THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE WHEN HE SIGNED THE NOTE-SHEET THERE WAS NO SUCH SENTENCE TH EREIN. BE THAT AS IT MAY, WHAT I FIND IS THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED CON FIRMATION WITH REGARD TO SHRI. JAGDISH KUMAR JHALARAM AND HAD SPECIFICAL LY BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT THE PAN ALLOTTED TO THE SAID PERSON WAS ANBPJ 5096P. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CONFIRMATION FROM M/S. LAVI MA TEXTILE FOR TRADE CREDIT BALANCE OF @1,19,340/-. THE CREDIT BALANCE C AME IN TO THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE MADE FROM TH E SAID PARTY WHICH WAS NEVER DOUBTED BY THE REVENUE. IN THE CI RCUMSTANCES, I ITA NO.2925/MDS/2016 :- 4 -: AM OF THE OPINION THAT ADDITIONS OUGHT NOT HAVE SU STAINED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS).THESE ADDITIO NS ARE DELETED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF M ARCH , 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED:7TH MARCH, 2017 KV &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. +,- / CIT(A) 5. )./ 0 / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. + / CIT 6. /12 / GF