आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.198/Hyd/2022 (िनधा१रण वष१/Assessment Year: 2013-14)

Sree Nagendra Vs. Dy. CIT Constructions, Khammam Central Circle 2(1)

PAN:AAUFS4784M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

िनधा१ौरती (cid:554)ारा/Assessee by: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CA राज(cid:830) व (cid:554)ारा/Revenue by:: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 11/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/02/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31/01/2022 of the learned CIT (A)-12, Hyderabad for the A.Y 2013-14.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant.

2. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the Ld. AO erred in making addition of Rs. 1,70,23,768/- U/s 68 of the IT Act, without establishing that the credits appearing were given to the assessee by known person and that the amount is cumulative and not received entirely during the year under reference.

3. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that no addition can be made U/s 68 in respect of trade creditors.

4. The Ld.CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the cash deposits are the loans and advances received during the course of business and are reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee, which is supported by evidence in books of accounts.

5. The Ld.CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the Ld. AO has not brought on record any contradictory evidence by making enquiries about the genuineness and creditworthiness or otherwise of the transactions but has added to the income returned, is not correct and justified.

6. The Ld.CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the Ld. AO erred in not considering the fact that the amount of Rs. 1,70,23,768/- is already shown in the book of accounts of the assessee.

7. The Ld.CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee is, maintaining books of account and the same are duly audited u/s 44AB of the Act by the Chartered Accountants.

8. The Ld. CIT (A)erred in upholding the addition made by the AO even though the Identity, Genuineness and Creditworthiness of the creditors is proved.

9. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition on the fact that the onus on the assessee is discharged when the Identity, Genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors is proved.

10. The assessee may add, alter or modify any other points to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal”.

3. This is the second round of appeal, as earlier learned CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 25/10/2016 for want of compliance and also for delay in filing the appeal without adjudication on merits. On further appeal, this Tribunal vide order dated 15/03/2019 remitted the matter back to the record of the learned CIT (A) with a direction to dispose of the appeal on merit after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee,.

4. In the second round, the learned CIT (A) has sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of sundry creditors. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has made the addition of Rs.1,70,23,768/- on account of increase in the sundry creditors during the year under consideration as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. He has contended that since these are the trade creditors and therefore, the parameters for verification of the trade creditors are different from the cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. This is not a transaction of loan or advance received by the assessee but these are only sundry creditors