TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same cannot be declared bogus on the ground that the same were required to be transported by way of mode of vehicular transport. Because it is a matter of common knowledge that many of the companies make available purchases made from them at the doorstep of the buyers. CIT (A) has not decided the issue on the basis of evidence led by the assessee rather decided the issue on the basis of presumptions which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. So, in the interest of justice, we deem it necessary to remit the case back to the ld. CIT (A) to decide afresh after examining the entire evidence led by assessee by providing further opportunity of being heard. Addition u/s 14A r.w.r 8D - HELD THAT:- AO has not recorded his dissatisfact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JUDICIAL MEMBER : Since common questions of facts and law have been raised in all the aforesaid appeals, the same are being disposed off by way of consolidated order to avoid repetition of discussion. 2. Appellant, M/s. Encore Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the assessee ) by filing the present appeals sought to set aside the impugned orders all dated 31.10.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXXI, New Delhi qua the assessment years 2006,07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 2010-11 on the grounds inter alia that:- AY 2006-07 That on the facts circumstances of the case the learned AO and the CIT (A) erred in : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3) Disallowing ₹ 4,22,000/- each in AYs 2008-09, 2009-10 2010-11 respectively u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act. 4) Disallowing the expenditure u/s 14A without the Assessing Officer giving any finding in the assessment order regarding the amount of actual expenditure incurred by the assessee to earn tax-free income. 5) Not following the orders of the jurisdictional High Court in this.. 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the issue at hand in all the aforesaid appeals are : Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee company has made purchases of ₹ 52,89,420/- and ₹ 50,39,398/- in AYs 2006-07 2007-08 respectively from M/s. Ja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 4,22,000/- ₹ 4,22,000/- in AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 2010-11 respectively by partly allowing the appeals. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeals. 5. Assessee has not preferred to put in appearance despite issuance of the notice and consequently, we proceeded to decide the present appeal with the assistance of the ld. DR as well as on the basis of documents available on the file. 6. We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative for the revenue to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be believed. Moreover, when a company has stated to have purchased the computer peripherals etc. which are stated to have been transported/dispatched by hand, the same cannot be declared bogus on the ground that the same were required to be transported by way of mode of vehicular transport. Because it is a matter of common knowledge that many of the companies make available purchases made from them at the doorstep of the buyers. 9. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that ld. CIT (A) has not decided the issue on the basis of evidence led by the assessee rather decided the issue on the basis of presumptions which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. So, in the interest of justice, we deem it necessar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the light of the evidence led by the assessee. 12. Moreover, when we peruse para 4.3.1 of the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT (A) in AY 2007-08, he has specifically come up with the findings inter alia that the AO has not given any finding that he has not satisfied with the appellant/assessee s claim that no expenditure has been incurred on the investment activity; that investment is an opening balance and that there is no interest payment made on the loans and in fact the company has not raised any investment for the purpose of investment and that Rule 8D is effective from 2008-09 and not from the current assessment year. Despite recording all these facts, ld. CIT (A) again proceeded to apply Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
