9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p; 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in erroneously arriving at the conclusion that as per the complete summarized reconciliation chart filed by the assessee total differences worked out at only Rs.1,78,157/-. There are no details in the order about the explanation of the figures totaling upto Rs.3,70,46,085/- and as to how they were accepted as genuine. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in accepting the purchases made by the assessee on the basis of confirmations filed before him without any verification of existence of the parties. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in giving the findings in respect of the purchases and expenses simply on the basis of TDS deducted by the appellant from some parties when TDS comes into play in respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing an amount of Rs.1,84,58,210/-. The AO noted that the assessee had not given any explanation in this regard. The AO asked the assessee to reconcile the above noted defects or discrepancies, but, the assessee could not reconcile the same. The AO, therefore, held that the assessee was expected to furnish correct and true information before the AO as well as to prove the genuineness of the transactions, however, he could not discharge the primary onus. Hence, the AO made the addition of an amount of Rs.3,72,31,254/- by treating the entire expenditure claimed on account of purchases, pertaining to all the parties in which cases notices u/s 133(6) were not responded and parties in which cases the said notices were received back, unserved thro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and correct. The remand report of the AO was forwarded to assessee by the CIT(A) for his comments/objections, if any. In response to the same, the AR of the assessee submitted that the remand report made by the AO without giving any opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was argued that the complete details and address of the parties, in respect of which various transactions and purchases and expenses, etc. were undertaken and additions were made by the AO were given to the AO during the assessment proceedings based on which only the AO could issue the said enquiry letters to these parties. It was also argued that most of the parties had filed their confirmations on 24/12/2007 directly to the AO, which should be available in the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccounts and bills and vouchers of the appellant and further could have verified the payments made against these purchases etc. from the bank account statements of the appellant. No such efforts are made by the AO, neither during the assessment proceedings nor during the remand proceedings. The affidavits and account confirmations filed by the appellant are not examined by the AO. The sales made against these purchases duly recorded in the books of accounts of the appellant are not doubted. The books of account are found to be audited by the tax auditors, wherein no such infirmities are noted in the maintenance of the books of account of the appellant. 2.4.9 Accordingly, in view of these facts of the case, as discussed above, the ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erences worked out at only Rs.1,78,157/- as there are no details in the order about the explanation of the figures totaling upto Rs.3,70,46,085/- and as to how they were accepted as genuine. She further contended that the CIT(A) erred in accepting the purchases made by the assessee on the basis of confirmations filed before him without any verification of the existence of the parties. The learned DR submitted that the CIT(A) has failed to pass a speaking order. She further submitted that the assessee has filed self-serving documents before the CIT(A) in respect of 17 parties and the same have to be verified. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that the CIT(A) passed a detailed order after calling fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies were found to be to the tune of Rs.1,84,58,210/-. As per the AO, the assessee failed to explain the same nor it could furnish the relevant confirmations of all the 17 parties as mentioned above. He, therefore, held that the assessee could not discharge its responsibility to the extent of not providing proper details as well as not furnishing confirmations of these parties. Accordingly, he treated the entire transactions to the said 17 parties as bogus entries and made an addition of Rs.3,72,31,524/-. The CIT(A) held that "the findings of the AO in the assessment order as well as his findings given in the remand report as mentioned above is found to be unsubstantiated. It appears that the AO has not made any serious efforts to reconcile ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
