9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... qua non adjudication of ground raised in respect of Rs. 2,48,631/- appearing in AIR in respect of those parties with whom the assessee denied to have any business dealings. 3. Facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 28.9.2010 declaring total income at Rs. 74,92,150/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 26.4.2011. Thereafter, scrutiny proceedings were initiated against the assessee and statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee was engaged in the business of shipping and logistic services and trading in pallets. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO on the basis AIR information , the AO asked the assessee to furnish the details ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of additional evidences and revised 26AS, it was confirmed by the Ld.AO that the appellant has reconciled the transactions amounting to Rs. 1,45,39,060/- with respect of Diamond Trading and Consultancy Ltd. reported in the AIR with the appellant's books. It can been seen that such reconciliation is primarily on the fact that appellant has not transaction with the Diamond Trading and Consultancy Ltd. The fact which was ratified by the party by devising its TDS return. Therefore, the addition made by the ld. AO in respect of un-reconciled amount in relation to Diamond Trading and Consultancy Ltd is deleted as the same stand fully justified undoubtedly, there is added in the contention of he appellant that AO should have issued notices under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd in ITA No.5556/Mum/2013(AY-2008-09) dated 11.4.2016 in which the identical issue has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee. The ld. AR finally relied on the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal and prayed for deletion of addition. On the contrary, the ld DR relied on the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the addition was based on the entries as appeared in the AIR information/Form No.26AS as the assessee could not reconcile or offer any plausible explanation and prayed for the confirmation of the order of ld. CIT(A). 5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the parties, perused the material placed before us including the orders of authorities below and case laws relied upon by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the total sales in AIR report were Rs. 48,42,51,354/- which is just 20% of the total sales of the assessee. Out of the said AIR entries the assessee had reconciled the entries amounting to Rs. 46,97,07,933/- meaning thereby that 97% of the AIR entries were reconciled by the assessee. The difference mismatch might be due to faulty return filed by the 3rd party. The ld. AR further submitted that in order to verify the un-reconciled items of AIR information, the AO has sent notice under section 133(6) to various parties on the addresses provided in the AIR information twice but all the notices were returned back undelivered to the department which proved that the AIR information could not be relied upon to make addition in the hands of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
