TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of assessee Addition on account of difference in vendors accounts – AO made addition of 25% of purchase – Held that:- As concluding from the facts of the case and considering the above finding of the AO in the remand report. There is no substance in the finding of the CIT(A) as the AO himself has accepted the genuineness of the purchases alongwith reconciliation. Their remains no reason for the addition. Issue decides in favour of assessee - ITA No.5816/Mum/2011 - - - Dated:- 25-7-2012 - SHRI I.P. BANSAL AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, JJ. Appellant by: Shri Haresh P. Shah Respondent by: Shri Baban D Patil ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA (AM): This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)- 34, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay may be condoned. 3. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative could not controvert the facts brought on record by the Counsel. 4. Considering the facts brought on record, in the form of affidavit, we find that the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Therefore, the delay is condoned and appeal is admitted. 5. The assessee has shown his grievance by raised five grounds of appeal. The effective grounds are ground No. 2 3 which are as under: 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of 25% of purchases on which addition was made in respect of Pam Pac Machines Pvt. Ltd. Amounting to Rs. 451312/- without considering the remand report subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e between the amount shown by the assessee and confirmed by the parties. The assessee was asked to reconcile the difference. The assessee filed reconciliation statement which was rejected by the AO. The AO finally added a sum of Rs. 96,54,984/- as bogus purchases. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 7. In the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee contended that all purchase transactions are genuine . In support of his contention, the assessee produced all the purchase bills regarding purchases made from 11 parties and submitted that the payments have been routed through banking channels. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the submissions and the evidences filed by the assessee and transmitted the submissions and evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said two parties. 10. M/s. Pam Pac Machines Pvt. Ltd. Purchase differences of Rs. 18,05,247/- The assessee has shown purchases of Rs. 35,42,882/- from M/s. Pam Pac Industries for the year. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the AO had issued notice u/s. 133(6) to this party to cross verify the assessee s transactions with the party. In reply the party filed letter dt. 13.11.2008 confirming the Purchases to the extent of Rs. 17,37,635/- only. Hence, the difference of Rs. 18,05,247/- were held as bogus purchases and added to the business income of the assessee. During Remand proceedings the AR of the assessee filed the copies of Purchase bills and has also filed the Export invoices of the materials purchased from this party an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onents difference in purchase The assessee has shown purchases of Rs. 3,15,500/- from M/s. Ajas Components for the year. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the AO had issued notice u/s. 133(6) to this party to cross verify the assessee s transactions with the party. In reply the party filed letter dt. 22.12.2008 confirming the purchases to the extent of RS. 2,39,400/- only. Hence, the difference of Rs. 76,100/- were held as bogus purchases and added to the business income of the assessee. During Remand proceedings, the AR of the assessee filed the copies of three purchase bills and has also filed the Export invoices of the materials purchased from this party and a copy of the VAT form. Further, the party has filed a copy of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
