he entire basis for the additions made by the AO is that, none of the parties have responded to notices sent u/s 133(6) and beyond that he has neither examined the nature of sundry creditors or ledger account or the bills. First of all, from the perusal of the copy of the ledger account and the balance sheet, it is quite clear that during the year addition on account of sundry creditors are only Rs. 35,36,546/-; and if AO is invoking section 68, ostensibly, the entire addition of Rs. 2,22,59,664/- could not have been made u/s 68, because these are not credits in the books of account for the relevant previous year. Moreover, from the perusal of the ledger account of the sundry creditors it is seen that all these parties were having regular transactions from whom assessee has been making purchases and all the payments has been made though account payee cheques against specific bills and also mentions vouchers numbers. The bills of these parties contain the entire details of purchases made by the assessee. Once from all the parties assessee was having regular business transaction and regular payment has been made from these parties, duly backed by bills and payment vouchers, then where is the question of disallowance. If the purchases made from these parties have been duly accounted for and are part of trading account and neither the debits side nor the credit side of the trading results have been disturbed nor books of accounts have been rejected, then no addition on account of sundry creditors can be made. Accordingly, the addition as confirmed by the Ld. CIT( A) is confirmed and additions stands deleted.