IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
  28.04.2011 
.
 Present:        Ms. Sanjee Sabharwal, Advocate for the appellant. 
 Mr. Satyen Sethi with Mr. A.T. Panda, Advocates for the respondent. 
.
 + ITA No. 678/2011 
.
 The Assessing Officer, while carrying out the assessment observed that 
 certain creditors were shown in the books of accounts which were static 
 creditors for more than three years.  He, accordingly, asked the assessee to 
 furnish documentary evidence to prove that the amount shown in those accounts 
 was still payable by the assessee. In his opinion, the assessee could not 
 furnish satisfactory evidence and, therefore, he made addition in the sum of 
 `26,93,599/- representing some of these creditors.  The CIT(A) confirmed this 
 order. 
 The ITAT has, however, deleted the additions after arriving at the finding 
 of fact that all these accounts were running accounts and even payments have 
 been made in some of these accounts in frequent years.  Each account is 
 discussed from paras 2.5 to 2.9.  However, learned counsel for the appellant has 
 referred to the following observations made by the Tribunal, same are as 
 follows:- 
.
 ?2.10       On considering these facts, it is felt that the inquiry should have 
 been made in the case of Music Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. and 134 U Multimedia 
 International Ltd. to ascertain whether the amounts credited were in respect of 
 any services actually received.  That has not been done.  It is not the case 
 made out by any of the lower authorities that the expenditure claimed in this 
 year was not actually incurred.  Further, it is seen that no amount has been 
 written off to the credit of Profit and Loss Account in this year. ?? 
.
 On this basis, it is contended that once the ITAT itself observed that 
 the Assessing Officer had not undertaken the exercise to find out that the 
 service of the aforesaid creditors were actually rendered or not, the ITAT 
 should have remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer in respect of those 
 creditors for undertaking proper inquiry which has not been done. 
 Issue notice limited to the aforesaid issue. 
 Mr. Satyen Sethi, Advocate enters in appearance and accepts notice on 
 behalf of the respondent.  A copy of paper book has been supplied to learned 
 counsel for the respondent today in the Court. 
 Having regard to the fact that the issue is in narrow compass and would 
 not take much time, we are fixing the matter for disposal on 
 16th May, 2011. 
.
 A.K. SIKRI, J. 
.
.
.
 M.L. MEHTA, J. 
 APRIL 28, 2011 
 AK 
.
.
.
 8 #