M/S. Astha Infra Heights Private Limited, Lucknow V. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(5), LUCKNOW

ITA 749/LKW/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1191 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 23-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J S MINHAS
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice; Period of limitation; Additional evidence; Time period of passing order
• Section: 143(3); 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 749/LKW/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014 - 15 M/S ASTHA INFRA HEIGHTS PVT. LTD. 1/90, SECTO R 1, LDA COLONY LUCKNOW V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(5) LUCKNOW T AN /PAN : AAICA1537H (APP ELL ANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI J.S. MINHAS, CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING: 28 08 201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07 0 9 20 1 8 O R D E R PER P ARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, J.M : THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 1, LUCKNOW DATED 22/9/2017 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1 . THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - I, LUCKNOW [HERE - IN - AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE LD. CIT (A)'S] GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFORMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,06,88,435 / - TO THE RETURNED LOSS OF RS.26,80,346 / - UNDER THE HEAD SUNDRY CREDITORS AND IN NOT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BEF ORE HIM ON A WHIMSICAL GROUND AGAINST ALL SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND FAIR - PLAY, ON NOTIONS, CONJECTURES AND SURMISES AND THUS THE ORDER PASSED IN AN ILLEGAL MANNER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE CORRECT FACTS IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND MAY KIND LY BE ORDERED TO BE QUASHED. ITA NO.749/LKW/2017 PAGE 2 OF 9 2 . IN CONFORMING THE ORDER OF THE AO THE LD. CIT (A)'S CHOSE TO IGNORE OR RATHER FAILED TO COMPLETELY APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE SUNDRY CREDITORS ARE DULY PROVED AND THAT ALL THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS INCLUDING CONFIRMATIONS ETC. ARE DULY AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THUS AS THE ADDITION IS MADE WITHOUT ANY BASIS ONLY ON WHIMS AND FANCIES THE SAME MAY BE ORDERED TO BE DELETED. 3 . ON THE FACTS AND IN THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE THE LD. CIT (A)'S GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS IN CONFORMING THE ADDITION OF R S. 1,06,88,435 / - BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT ALL THE BALANCES ARE DULY RECONCILED AND THAT THE AO NOR THE LD. CIT (A)'S ALLOWED SUFFICIENT TIME AND OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT CO. TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCES OR THE CREDITORS BEFORE HIM AS THE QUERY WAS RAISED TOWARDS THE FAG END OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD AND THUS THE ORDER SO PASSED AND ADDITION MADE AGAINST THE SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND AGAINST NATURAL JUSTICE AND FAIR - PLAY IS VOID - AB -- INITIO AND THUS THE ADDITION SHOULD BE ORDER ED TO BE DELETED. 2 . THE LIMITED ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.1,06,88,435/ - TO THE RETURNED LOSS OF RS.26,80,346/ - BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE HEAD SUNDRY CREDITORS AND ALSO THAT ADDITIONAL E VIDENCES FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WERE NOT CONSIDERED AT ALL WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 . THE FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME AT A LOSS OF RS.26,80,346/ - ON 29/9/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15. ST ATUTORY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 28/9/2015 S INCE THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS . A SSESSEE FILED ITS BALANCE SHEET FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR ALONG WITH COPY OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, COPY O F BANK STATEMENTS, COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURNS, LIST OF CREDITORS, DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND OTHER RELEVANT DETAILS IN RESPONSE TO STATUTORY ITA NO.749/LKW/2017 PAGE 3 OF 9 NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND 142(1). ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION AN D BUILDER SERVICES. ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) WITH AN ASSESSED INCOME OF RS.80,08,090/ - . 4 . ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE COMPLETE DETAILS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS ALONG WITH COMPLETE ADDRESS AND COMPLETE DETAILS OF MODE OF PAYM ENT VIDE NOTICE DATED 7/4/2016. ASSESSEE THEREAFTER RESPONDED VIDE REPLY DATED 22/4/2016 AND STATED THAT IN THE NEXT HEARING REQUIRED DETAILS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREAFTER ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE INCREASE IN CREDITOR S DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE RESPONDED VIDE ITS REPLY DATED 27/04/2016 WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD STARTED ITS CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IN FULL SWING DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THIS HAS ATTRIBUTED TO AN INCREASE IN THE CREDITORS. AS PER NOTICE DATED 10/05/2016 , A SSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED A LIST OF SUNDRY CREDITORS WITH NAMES, ADDRESSES AND AMOUNT AS ON 31/03/2014 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15. 5 . ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED ANOTHER NOTICE U/S 142 (1) ON 03.10.2016 AND REQUIRED TO SUBMIT CERTAIN INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO THE SUNDRY CREDITORS INCLUDING ITS TREATMENT IN THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED VIDE ITS REPLY THAT THE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION O F FLATS AND THE SAID EXPENDITURE IS CAPITALIZED AND INCOME IS ONLY RECORDED AT THE TIME OF SALE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER IN ORDER TO CONFIRM THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ISSUED NOTICES U/S 133 (6) ON 28/10/2016 TO ALL CREDITORS ON THE ADDRESSES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ALL THE NOTICES UNDER SECTION 1 33(6) WERE SERVED TO THE CREDITORS AND NONE OF THEM WERE RETURNED BACK WITH THE POSTAL ITA NO.749/LKW/2017 PAGE 4 OF 9 REMARK UNSERVED; MEANING THEREBY THAT IN THE GIVEN ADDR ESS ES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE, CONCERNED CREDITORS WERE THERE AND ADDRESSES WERE GENUINE. HOWEVER, IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS APPEARING IN HIS ORDER, THAT SO FAR AS CONFIRMATION IS CONCERNED , THE SAME WAS RECEIVED ONLY FROM ONE CRE DITOR , M/S GURU KRIPA TRANSPORT CORPORATION. ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER OBSERVED THAT NONE OF THE CREDITORS ATTENDED NOR ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSION WAS FILED BY ANY OF THE OTHER CREDITOR AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONSTANTLY ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE A LL THE CREDITORS. ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1,06,88,435/ - ON THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS, SINCE THERE WAS NO RESPONSE NOR ANY CONFIRMATION WAS FILED ON THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. 6 . B EING AGGRIEVED WITH REGARD TO THE SAID ADDITION, ASSESSEE TOOK THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). BEFORE LD. CIT(A) A PLEA WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT EARLIER COUNSEL WHO HAS REPRESENTED ITS CASE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT SUBMITTED ALL THE DE TAILS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS THOUGH THEY WERE PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THAT HAS RESULTED IN TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREAFTER , SINCE ASSESSEE HAS CHANGED ITS COUNSEL, ASSESSEE PRAYED BEFORE THE LD. CI T(A) TO FILE THE REMAINING LIST OF SUNDRY CREDITORS, WHICH WERE NOT THERE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALONG WITH ALL CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE SAID CREDITORS, AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS PER RULE 46A OF THE RULES . LD. CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO THE ADMISSION OF ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A DID NOT ADMIT THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ON THE GROUND THAT , ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT(A) , ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN SATISFACTORILY REASONS FOR NON - PRODUCTION OF THESE EVIDENCES DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FURTHER MORE ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT(A) SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE SUNDRY CREDITORS AND THEIR ITA NO.749/LKW/2017 PAGE 5 OF 9 CONFIRMATION AND BECAUSE OF THESE REASONS LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITION AL EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE HIM. LD. CIT(A) THEREAFTER HAS AGREED WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS.1,06,88,435/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT. 7 . LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED BEFORE US THAT SCOPE AND LE GAL OBLIGATION ENSHRINED UNDER SECTION 133(6) AND AS UPHELD BY VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS THAT ONCE ASSESSEE HAS FILED LIST OF SUNDRY CREDITORS WITH COMPLETE NAMES AND ADDRESSES AND AMOUNT AS ON THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDING ON 31/3/2014 AND THEREAFTER NO TICE IS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IF IT IS VERIFIED THAT THE ADDRESS ES ARE GENUINE, THEN BURDEN OF OBLIGATION SO FAR AS ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED IS CONSIDERED TO BE DISCHARGED AND THEREAFTER BURDEN SHIFTS ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAKE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 133(6) TO ITS LOGICAL END. IN THIS CASE, ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE DETAILS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS WITH NAMES AND ADDRESS AND AS COMING OUT FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALL NOTICES UNDER SECTION 133(6) WERE DULY SERVED TO THESE CRED ITORS WHICH INDICATE THAT ADDRESSES ARE GENUINE. MAKING ADDITION ON THIS BASIS IS AN ACTION WHICH IS TOTALLY ARBITRARY, PERVERSE AND BAD IN LAW. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHATEVER REMAINING LIST OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AND ENTIRE COPY OF CONFIRMATION WERE FILED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. RULE 46A WHICH STATES REGARDING ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. IT SAYS THAT LD. CIT(A) SHALL ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ONLY WHENCE IT HAS BEEN CONFRONTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THIS OPPORTU NITY WAS NOT PROVIDED WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND LD. CIT(A) REJECTED ADMISSION OF ADDIT IO NAL EVIDENCES ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PROVIDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE BEFORE HIM SUNDRY CREDITO RS AND ALSO FOR THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN ITA NO.749/LKW/2017 PAGE 6 OF 9 SATISFACTORILY WHY THESE EVIDENCES WERE NOT FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS EXERCISE IS NOT WARRANTED WITHIN PURVIEW OF RULE 46A. 8 . THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9 . WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORD AND HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE ADDITION MADE BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE BASICALLY FOR TWO REASONS, FIRST LY ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED NOTICES UNDER SECTION 133( 6) TO THE SUNDRY CREDITORS AND THAT NONE OF THEM APPEARED BEFORE HIM NOR ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSION OR CONFIRMATIONS WERE FILED. AT THE FIRST APPELLATE STAGE , LD. CIT(A) REJECTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEING FILED BEFORE HIM AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO QUESTION TO CALL FOR REMAND REPORT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS AND VERACITY OF THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. SO FAR AS ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT , ASSESSEE IS A BUILDER AND CONTRACTOR AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED PUR CHASE AS IN THE PURCHASE ACCOUNT AND HAS NOT DISPUTED PURCHASE FIGURE AT ALL. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT CREDITORS HAVE INCREASED SINCE IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR THERE WAS INCREASE IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. IT IS COMMON TRADE PRACTICE FO R THE ASSESSEE TO PURCHASE RAW MATERIALS FOR BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND TRANSPORTATION AND IT IS WITH REGARD TO THESE ITEMS THERE WAS ALSO INCREASE IN SUNDRY CREDITORS. IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THE GENUINENESS OF THESE CREDITORS , NOTICE S UNDER SECTION 133(6) WERE ISSUED IN THE GIVEN ADDRESSES BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE THAT THESE NOTICES WERE PROPERLY SERVED ON THE GIVEN ADDRESSES OF THE CREDITORS . GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT NONE OF THE CREDITORS HAD APPEARED BEFORE HIM AND NO WRITTEN SUBMISSION/CONFIRMATION WAS FILED BEFORE HIM. ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED COMPLETE LIST OF NAMES, ADDRESSES AND TOTAL AMOUNT SO FAR AS SUNDRY ITA NO.749/LKW/2017 PAGE 7 OF 9 CREDITORS ARE CONCERNED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AFTER THAT IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO USE REVENUE MACHINERY AVAILABLE TO HIM TO ENQUIRE, FIND OUT, INVESTIGATE AND ACCORDINGLY TAKE THE MATTER TO ITS LOGICAL CONCLUSION. THIS HAS ALSO BEEN DISCUSSED BY VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. THE CO - ORDINATE ITAT LUCKNOW BENCH IN I TA NO.659/LKW/2016 ON THE SIMILAR ISSUE REFERRED TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ORISSA CORPORATION PVT . LTD., 159 ITR 78 AND OBSERVED AND HELD AS FOLLOWS: - WE ALSO FIND THAT THE APEX COURT HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ORISSA CORPORATION PVT. LTD. (SUPR A ) THAT IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUES NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6), IT IS HIS DUTY TO BRING THE PROCESS TO L O GICAL CONCLUSION AND NON - RESPONSE OF SUCH PERSON CANNOT BE HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT FROM THE EN TIRE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER NO EXERCISE HAS BEEN DONE SO TO VIRTUALLY SEE WHAT IS THE OUTCOME OF NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133(6) NOR ANY ENQUIRY OR POSSIBLE EFFORTS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING THE SAME. DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE OF THE SAID NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) BY LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED. 10 . SIMILARLY, IN ANOTHER CASE REGARDING GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES IN THE CASE OF JCIT VS. MATHURA DAS ASHOK KUMAR, 101 TTJ 810, ALLAHABAD BEN CH OF THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED, RATHER, THE SAME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED, THE CREDITS STAND FULLY EXPLAINED AND NO ADVERSE INFERENCE IS CALLED FOR, EITHER ON FACTS OR IN LAW. 11 . CO - ORDINATE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. DEBDAS DUTTA, WEST BENGAL IN ITA NO.1595/KOL/2014 ON THE SIMILAR ISSUE HAS OBSERVED AND HELD AS FOLLOWS: - ITA NO.749/LKW/2017 PAGE 8 OF 9 IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRADE CREDITORS COULD NOT RESPOND TO THE NOTICE ISSUE D U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) REVERSED THE ORDER OF AO. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT ALL THE TRADE CREDITORS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE - SHEET ARE ARISING OUT OF THE EXPENSE OF MATERIAL PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS ALL THE PURCHASES HAVE BEEN DULY ACCEPTED BY THE AO AND SAME WAS NOT DISPUTED. HOWEVER, THE TRADE CREDITORS WHICH ARE EMANATING FROM THE PURCHASES HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED MERELY ON THE GROUND OF NON - RESPONSE OF NOTICE ISSUED TO THEM U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE TRA DE CREDITORS CANNOT BE DISTURBED WITHOUT DISALLOWING THE CORRESPONDING PURCHASE. 12 . WE FIND THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR THE LD. D.R. AT THE TIME OF HEARING DISPUTED THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND ONCE P URCHASES ARE NOT DOUBTED , IN SUCH A SCENARIO QUESTION OF CREDITORS BEING NON - GENUINE DOES NOT ARISE. AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN CIT VS. ORISSA CORPORATION PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ENSURE PRODUCTION OF THOSE CREDITORS BEFORE HIM AND FOR THE DEEDS OF HIS INACTION, ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE. 13 . S ECONDLY , WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALWAYS COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF LAW BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, MEANING THEREBY THEY HAVE FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BE FORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A WHICH PROVIDES THAT LD. CIT(A) MAY ADMIT THOSE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AFTER CONFRONTING THE SAME BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASCERTAIN THE VERACITY OF THOSE EVIDENCES. INSTEAD OF DOING THIS EXERCISE, LD. CIT(A) HAS SUMMARILY REJECTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES PLACED BEFORE HIM UNDER RULE 46A ON BASELESS AND FRIVOLOUS REASONS WHICH GOES AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 14 . TAKING TOTALITY OF FACTS AND RECORDS INTO CONSIDERATION, WE FIND THAT COMP LETE NAMES, ADDRESSES, AMOUNTS WERE PROVIDED BY THE ITA NO.749/LKW/2017 PAGE 9 OF 9 ASSESSEE INCLUDING ENTIRE CONFIRMATION FROM THESE CREDITORS AS APPEARING FROM PAGES 7 TO 99 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE US. LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT GIVEN A CLEAR CUT FINDING ON THE ISSUE AND HAS SIMPL Y ACCEPTED THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER , WITHOUT TAKING PROCEDURE INITIATED BY HIM UNDER SECTION 133(6) TO A LOGICAL CONCLUSION , HAS HELD THE ASSESSEE LIABLE FOR NON - PRODUCTION OF CREDITORS , WHICH IS NOT WARRANTED WITHIN T HE PURVIEW OF TAX LEGISLATION. 15 . IN VIEW OF THE MATTER AND ON THE BASIS OF ANALYSIS AND EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS AND RECORDS HEREINABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 16 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07 / 0 9 / 201 8 . SD/ - SD/ - [ T.S. KAPOOR ] [PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 7 TH SEPTEMBER , 201 8 JJ: COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR