9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 3. On careful perusal of the grounds of the assessee on merits, we observe that except ground no. 6(i), other grounds of the assessee are argumentative and supportive to this main ground which reads as under:- "6(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of amount of Rs. 66,01,449/- on account of purchases made by the assessee company." 4. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out in the Swastik Pipes Group of cases on 28.2.2008. Subsequently, the case of the assessee including other related cases was centralised by the CIT, Delhi-V, New Delhi vid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. vide its letter dated 28.12.2010 (Paper Book page no. 80 and 81) whereby it was confirmed beyond doubt that the total sales made by the seller Jindal Polyfilms Ltd. to the assessee were of Rs. 2,66,65,078 as while submitting details on earlier occasion, it has left out purchases of Rs. 55,72,112/- in the month of September, 2004. Ld. counsel has drawn our attention towards paper book page no. 103 and submitted that in the FY 2004-05 relevant to assessment year under consideration i.e. 2005-06, the sale of September 2004 to December 2004 has not been reflected in the relevant column in the details available of month wise sales made by M/s Jindal Polyfilms Ltd. to the assessee. Ld. Counsel further pointed out that this mistake was reconcil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) rejected the explanation of the assessee and held that the assessee has not been able to establish through the bank statement that it has paid an amount of Rs. 2,76,94,515/- to M/s Jindal Polyfilms Ltd. which would have served as a documentary evidence supporting the contention of the assessee. The CIT(A) further held that no such exercise was carried out either at the assessment stage or during the appellate stage. The CIT(A) also held that if M/s Jindal Polyfilms Ltd. has shown a higher amount of sales to the assessee company in the revised letter, then they should have also revised the return of income by increasing their profit to that extent and no such exercise has been carried out by M/s Jinda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dal Polyfilms Ltd. and its AO to verify and examine the higher amount of sales as reconciled and rectified by the seller M/s Jindal Polyfilms Ltd. from its assessment record. This exercise cannot be conducted either by the assessee or by the AO of the present assessee. The authorities below have not doubted the contents and amount of sales by M/s Jindal Polyfilms Ltd. to the assessee as stated in the confirmation dated 28.12.2010, hence, the same cannot be rejected at the threshold by merely holding that the confirmation is an afterthought only because it was filed after more than two years. The AO should have verified and reconciled the same from the bank statement of the assessee and also by verifying the amount paid to M/s Jindal Polyfil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
