Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1066 - AT - Income TaxValidity of assessment order by invoking the provisions of Sec. 144 - Held that:- CIT(A) while deciding this grounds have taken into consideration the facts of the present case and had rightly held that in the assessment order, the AO has already narrated in detail the various opportunities given to the assessee and non-compliance on the part of the assessee. Even before Ld. CIT(A) the necessary opportunity was granted to the assessee and the written submissions as well as additional evidence was also considered by Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) also called for the remand report from the AO and assessee was further provided opportunity to file rejoinder to the remand report, therefore in our view, sufficient opportunities have already been availed by the assessee at every stage, therefore this ground raised by the assessee contains no merits. Rejecting the book results u/s 145(3) - Held that:- CIT(A) while deciding this grounds have taken into consideration the facts of the present case had rightly decided this ground on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) has rightly conclude that during the search, purchase bills and other papers found were verified against the records as per books maintained. The Ld. CIT(A) had sought remand report from the AO and found that in the remand proceedings, the details filed by the assessee were examined. The Ld. CIT(A) after relying upon the judgments of different judicial authority had rightly concluded that section 145(3) of the I.T. Act applies. Disallowance being 15% of the total purchases - Held that:- Considering the profit element embedded in these purchase transactions to factorize profit earned by assessee against purchase of material in the grey market and undue benefit of VAT against bogus purchases, we are of the considered view that restricting the additions @ 15% of purchases by Ld. CIT(A) is unreasonable. The ends of justice would be met in case the additions are restricted @ 12.5 % of purchased. Consequently orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) are set aside and hence we direct the AO to restrict the additions to the extent of 12.5% of the bogus purchases made from the parties. Accordingly this ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed. Addition on account of unsecured loans - assessee has not explained the purpose of loans taken and complete information like copy of IT returns, Balance-sheet or bank statement of the lenders were not filed - CIT- A deleted the addition - Held that:- AO had made the additions on the ground that only loan confirmations were filed but copy of ITR, bank statements of the lenders were not furnished. However, during the appellate proceedings, the assessee furnished all the details regarding which remand report was sought by the CIT(A) from the AO and the AO in the remand report had accepted the said facts and nothing adverse had pointed out. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) while relying upon the remand reports submitted by the AO had deleted the additions. Moreover, no new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld CIT (A).- Decided against revenue Addition on account of sundry creditors - major creditors for the year are Bright Global Paper Limited and Paper Plus Technologies Private Limited and it has been established that there has been no genuine purchase from these parties - CIT-A deleted the addition - Held that:- CIT(A) while deciding this grounds have taken into consideration the facts of the present case and also considered the remand report wherein the AO has not found anything adverse in respect of documents submitted by the assessee in the remand report. Therefore Ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions. Moreover, no new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld CIT (A). - Decided against revenue
|