TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hom the goods were sold were available with the Assessing Officer. The sale transactions were got confirmed by the Assessing Officer on a test check basis. No more inquiries were made. The assessee’s books of account were audited books of account. The tax audit report was on record. The auditors had not made any negative observation therein. Thus, source of the expenditure incurred in purchases is obviously explained - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos.4135 to 4140/Del/2012 & CO Nos.361 to 366/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 12-10-2012 - SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, AND SHRI A.D. JAIN, JJ. Revenue by : Mrs. Anuradha Misra, Sr.DR ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER The appeals are filed by the department and the Cross Objecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand report from the Assessing Officer and considering the same and the assessee s rejoinder thereon. 6. Before us, in the written submissions filed on behalf of the assessee, it has been contended that the matter is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of a co-ordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Blue Luxury Impex Pvt. Ltd , passed on 13.06.2012 (copy is placed on record). 7. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, has placed strong reliance on the impugned order. 8. Having considered the written submissions filed on behalf of the assessee and the contentions of the Ld. DR, it is seen that the matter is indeed covered in favour of the assessee by Blue Luxury Impex Pvt. Ltd (supra). The first and foremost, the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account were audited books of account. The tax audit report was on record. The auditors had not made any negative observation therein. All these facts were duly taken into consideration by the Ld. CIT (A) and it was thereupon that the issue was decided in favour of the assessee. 9. So far as it regards Blue Luxury Impex Pvt. Ltd , (supra), under similar facts and circumstances, the Tribunal, following CIT vs. M/s Radhika Creation , a judgement dated 30.04.2010, rendered by the Hon ble Delhi High Court, held the provisions of Section 69-C of the Act to be not applicable. Further, the matter is also covered by Babulal C. Borana , 282 ITR 251 (Bom), which is on similar lines. 10. n view of the above, we do not find any error in the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
