TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be available. CIT(A) has observed that since the AO has accepted the part of the purchased made in cash supported by self made vouchers, there is no reason in making disallowance of 20% of the purchases, without pin pointing specific cash vouchers. CIT(A) has rightly observed that the AO has made disallowances in the realm of assumption and guess work. We are inclined to agree with the finding of the CIT(A) that assessee case get strength from the AO s own action that in subsequent years no such disallowances have been made by the AO, particularly when there was no change of facts in the case of the assessee. The disallowance made by the AO, without any basis cannot be approved. CIT(A) is justified in deleting disallowance - Decided a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24/- made by AO on account of unverifiable purchases by observing that in subsequent year no such disallowance has been made, ignoring the fact that every assessment is separate assessment and the facts of the subsequent year's differ from the facts of the case under consideration. 4. That the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-II, Agra being erroneous in law and on facts deserves to be quashed and that the Assessing Officer deserves to be restored. 3. The sole issue is regarding deleting the addition of ₹ 93,44,424/- against purchases made by the assessee company relying upon the decision of Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. CPL Tannery , (2009) 318 ITR 179 (Cal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the assessee that payments are made to produces of hides and skin are also neither doubted nor disputed by the AO. On the basis of these facts it is not justified on the part of the AO to disallow 20% of the payments u/s 40A(3) in the process of assessment. We, therefore, delete the addition of ₹ 17,90,571/- and ground no. 1 is decided in favour of the assessee. 5.2 Thus while considering the aforesaid decision of Hon ble Calcutta High court even though it was rendered in the context of disallowance made u/s 40A(3), however the disallowance involved therein also pertained to the cash purchases, and while also considering the assessee s claim, as made vide written submissions, I find there is a credence and forc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment order. He contended that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition of ₹ 93,44,424/- which was made by the AO on account of unverifiable purchases. The CIT(A) has not appreciate the facts that assessee company could not furnish the bills, vouchers and addresses of the persons from whom purchases were made; and that the decision of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. CPL Tannery , (supra) relied by him, pertains to disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act. 7. The ld. AR for the assessee contended that assessee is running a slaughter house where most of the purchases are made in cash and entire sales turnover is accepted by the AO; that in the VAT return the sales and purchases shown by the assessee has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The ld. DR placed reliance on the assessment order. 9. Heard the rival contentions, perused the record and the decision of Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. CPL Tannery , (supra). 10. It is undisputed fact on record that in the subsequent assessment years i.e., 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 the assessee s trading results inclusive of purchase, sales and closing stock have been accepted by the Department. 11. The ld. CIT(A) while considering the decision of Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. CPL Tannery , (supra) though it was rendered on the disallowance made u/s 40A(3), however, such disallowance involved therein also pertain to the cash purchases. The ld. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
