9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals]-5, New Delhi dated 19.04.2018 for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions made by the A.O u/s 68 of the Act when the A.O has made the addition u/s 69C of the Act. 3. Facts on record show that the assessee filed its return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice was issued and served upon M/s Kumar Sales. Once again, no reply was received and the A.O formed a belief that the assessee has claimed bogus expenses on account of purchase from M/s Kumar Sales and proceeded by making the addition of Rs. 4,97,589/- u/s 69C of the Act. 5. The assessee assailed the assessment before the CIT(A) and strongly contended that the purchases are duly recorded in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y has been received through banking channel. The reply of the assessee did not find any favour with the CIT (A) who made addition of credit of Rs. 5,02,075/- u/s 68 of the Act. However, the assessee CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs. 4,97,589/-, the addition which the A.O made. 7. By this, the assessee before me. The counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been stated due before the lower ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) realizing that Section 69C is not applicable on the facts of the case invoked Section 68 of the Act. In find that the assessee has furnished all the details of sales made to M/s Overseas and such details can be seen from the following chart:- Details of sales: S. No. Date Party Name Quantity Invoice amount 1 4/1/2014 M S Overseas 945 68,985 2 14/01/2014 M S Overseas 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
