TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 808X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by Assessing Officer on the same date when the Chartered Accountant of the assessee agreed for addition. The assessee has furnished confirmation letters from the suppliers of material and also furnished various details of the suppliers such as name, address, PAN, etc. of the suppliers to prove the identity and the genuineness of the suppliers. The assessee in an endeavor to prove the genuineness of the transactions and the suppliers has furnished the copies of return of income of the suppliers before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). As has been observed earlier it is not the case of Revenue that the assessee has made purchases from hawala operators. No infirmity in the order of CIT(Appeals) in deleting the addition - Decided a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orded by the Chartered Accountant of the assessee. Apart from addition on account of bogus purchases, following additions were made : i. Differences in liability in the case of M/s. Kirti Construction Company ₹ 11,39,194/-. ii. Differences in account balances of three parties added as excess liability ₹ 28,769/-. iii. Disallowance of Personal expenditures and Agricultural income ₹ 5,29,281/-. Aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted entire addition on account of bogus purchases and differences in liability in the case of M/s. Kirti Construction Company. The addition on account of differences in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the name of M/s. Kirti Construction Company. The explanation furnished by the assessee was not supported by cogent evidence. Thus, the assessee was trying to mislead the authorities below by creating bogus liability amounting to ₹ 11,39,194/-. The ld. DR vehemently defended the assessment order and prayed for reversing the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 4. Per contra, Shri Nikhil Pathak appearing on behalf of the assessee strongly supported the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the additions. The ld. AR submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee furnished various documents such as purchase bills, name of the suppliers, distinctive number of invoices, purc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und No. 2 of appeal the ld. AR submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer obtained information from M/s. Kirti Construction Company directly. As per books of M/s. Kirti Construction Company receivables from the assessee as on 31-03-2011were ₹ 4,83,944/-, whereas, in the Balance Sheet of assessee the liabilities in the name of M/s. Kirti Construction Company was shown at ₹ 16,23,138/-. The Assessing Officer made addition of difference between the two amounts. The ld. AR pointed that the assessee was not having extract of the account in the books of M/s. Kirti Construction Company for the period from 01-04-2007 to 31-03-2011. As on 31-03-2007 the credit balance in the books of assessee in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... greeing for the addition. It is an undisputed fact the addition on account of bogus purchases is not arising from the purchase of goods from hawala dealers. The Assessing Officer has made addition on the ground that the assessee has failed to furnish cogent documentary evidence to show purchase and transport of material. The assessee before the First Appellate Authority has filed sworn affidavit of the Chartered Account Shri S.V. Gandhi who had represented the assessee before the Assessing Officer. It has been alleged that the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings pressurized Chartered Accountant of the assessee to agree for the addition and was not given time to consult the assessee before the addition. A glaring fact that has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r reveal that the difference between the accounts maintained by the assessee and M/s. Kirti Construction Company was reconciled by the assessee and the reconciliation statement was also furnished by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. The difference was mainly on account of security deposits and wrong entry passed by assessee in respect of VAT payments in the Financial Year 2006-07. After having considered the reconciliation statement, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition. The ld. DR has failed to controvert the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the issue. In the absence of any contrary material brought to our notice we find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned findings of Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
