9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 708X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief to the assessee to the extent impugned in the grounds enumerated below: Grounds of appeal 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO which are as per the provisions of clause (b) to sub-section (1) of section 153A which clearly empowers the AO to reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the A.Y in which the search is conducted without limiting the enquiries and addition to the incriminating document found during the course of search & seizure." 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the Ld. CIT(A) was right in allowing the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... group was subjected to search proceedings on 04/02/2011 wherein various incriminating documents were found & seized from assessee's premises and computer backups were taken. It was alleged that the assessee was involved in taking bogus bills of purchases and indulged in manipulation of account. In response to notice u/s 153A dated 30/04/2012, the assessee filed return of income for AYs 2005-06 to 2011-12. The return for AY 2008-09 was filed at Nil on 27/06/2012 with a delay of 27 days. The key persons of the assessee were its two directors viz. (i) Shri Rajendra G. Parikh; (ii) Shri Aditya G.Parikh. The assessee had floated various subsidiary companies and stated to be associated with many entities. 3.3 The original return of income was fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business thereby evading taxes. The details of transactions found during search operations were confronted to the assessee and the assessee was show-caused to prove the genuineness, identity, creditworthiness and capacity to handle such large volume of transactions in view of the statement given by Shri Dilip Jayantilal Shah. 3.6 The details of purchases made by assessee for various AYs has been tabulated on page no.9 of the quantum assessment order. The total purchases made for the year under consideration amounted to Rs. 38.61 Lacs out of which purchases under doubt were Rs. 35.84 Lacs. 3.7 During search operations, it transpired that another entity namely M/s Sai Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., was being owned, controlled and managed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... produce books of account and prove the genuineness of the transactions. Consequently, the copies of assessee's bank statements were procured from different banks and summarized and upon perusal of these transactions, a conclusion was drawn that unaccounted money was routed back into the accounts of the assessee. It also transpired that some of the bank accounts were not reflected in the financial statements. Finally, the assessee was saddled with aggregate additions of Rs. 503.12 Lacs viz. (i)Addition on account of alleged bogus purchases for Rs. 38.61 Lacs; (ii) Addition on account of unexplained share premium Rs. 162.81 Lacs; (iii) Addition on account of unexplained loans Rs. 301.70 Lacs. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee agitated the quantum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red in making additions which are not based on any seized material. Accordingly, I direct the AO to delete the additions which are subject matter of grounds no.5,6,7,8,9 & 10. In the result, the grounds 5,6,7,8,9&10 are treated as allowed. Aggrieved, the revenue is under appeal before us. 5. Upon due consideration of facts as enumerated by us in the preceding paragraphs, we are unable to subscribe to approach adopted by first appellate authority in deleting the impugned additions. It is noted that the additions were deleted merely on the basis of remand report that no incriminating material was found during the search operations overlooking the fact that computer back up was seized during the search operation along with incriminating mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tant to note that the director of the assessee company, in statement u/s 132(4), sought time to furnish requisite information / documentary evidences to prove the genuineness of the transactions but failed to produce the same also could not refute the allegations that it obtained bogus bills from various suppliers. Therefore, we are unable to subscribe to the approach adopted by learned first appellate authority. Hence, on the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to setaside the order of learned first appellate authority and restore the matter back to Ld. CIT(A) for appreciation of factual matrix in the light of investigation being carried out by Ld. AO and re-adjudicate the same in accordance with law. The assessee, in turn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
