Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1113 - ITAT INDOREAdditions towards Inflated purchases - mistakes regarding the quantity of purchase of HSD & MS - short quantity shown in the ledger maintained by the IOCL by comparing the same with invoices of the purchase as well as the payment made by the assessee as reflected in the bank account statement - CIT(A) deleted the additions - HELD THAT:- The additional evidence produced by the assessee in the shape of invoices issued by the IOCL as well as bank account statements are independent record maintained by the bank and IOCL which cannot be manipulated by the individual assessee. Therefore, scope of any manipulation is completely ruled out in respect of these evidences produced by the assessee before the CIT(A). AO ought to have verified correctness of the details but he opted not to do so and raised the objection against the admission of the additional evidence. Once the additional evidence is not prepared by the assessee and the scope of any manipulation on the part of the assessee is ruled out then we do not find any reason for not admitting the additional evidence produced by the assessee. As noted from the monthly details of purchase made by the assessee as well as the payments as reflected in the bank account statement of the assessee that the quantity of the purchase and corresponding payments are duly matched without any discrepancy whereas in the ledger account maintained by the IOCL the factual mistakes are apparent regarding the quantity of purchases as shown only 6 kl instead of 12 kl and in some cases it is shown only 3 kl or 9kl. Therefore, these quantities as shown in the IOCL statement are not even matching with the value shown in the same documents. Comparative chart as reproduced by the CIT(A) clearly manifest these factual mistake in the IOCL statement regarding the quantity of purchase and hence, the assessment order is entirely based on incorrect facts without verifying the correct details and the facts from the supporting documents being the invoices issued by the IOCL and corresponding purchase consideration paid by the assessee. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), same is upheld. Appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
|