9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in this appeal of revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition despite there is difference in the copy of account of Hindusthan Syringes & Medical Devices Ltd. (in short HSMDL) with that of the assessee. For this, revenue has raised following ground nos. 1 and 2: "1.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting fresh documents at the appeal proceedings in connection with the transactions with M/s. Hindusthan Syringes when the same was not produced before the AO on repeated opportunities. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the computer generated ledger of a books of accounts cannot be changed at the sweet will of the assessee and the assessee has failed to submit any reasonable cause for such change in ledger accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the appellant. I agree with the contention of the appellant that it was the matter of reconciliation and the same was reconciled by passing reverse entry on 01.04.2008 by M/s. Hindusthan Syringes & Medical Devices Ltd. This is not a case of bogus purchases as alleged by the AO. In view of these facts, the addition made by the AO at Rs. 11,12,794/- is directed to be deleted. Therefore, the appeal on this ground is allowed." Aggrieved, revenue came in appeal before us. 5. We find that complete reconciliation i.e. entry of purchase as on 31.03.2008 for an amount of Rs. 11,12,794/- was filed. Once reconciliation is filed and the purchase entry is explained, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. Thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. Royal Surgical Pvt. Ltd. and further vide letter dated 26.11.2010 the A.O. gave a show cause letter to the appellant in which there is no mention with regard to M/s. Royal Surgical Pvt. Ltd. that shows that the detailed asked by the AO had been complied with by the appellant. The details/documents shows that there is no evidence for treating the transaction as bogus. Therefore, the same is directed to be deleted." Aggrieved, revenue came in appeal before us. 8. We find that the assessee got a copy of account in books of Royal Surgical Pvt. Ltd., which was submitted before the AO vide written submission dated 18.11.2010. This copy of account as appearing in the books of creditors i.e. Royal Surgical Pvt. Ltd. was filed before AO and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest credited/paid to these two parties. The CIT(A) also deleted the addition on the same reasoning by observing in para 6.2 as under: "6.2. I have perused the assessment order and considered the submission of the appellant. The AO has disallowed the said interest u/s. 40(a)(ia) on the ground that though the appellant received form No. 15G from the parties but the said forms were not submitted to the appropriate authority of the I. T. Department. Accordingly, AO disallowed the said expenses. I have, however, found that this issue is covered by the decisions cited by the A.R. that if the assessee has received form No. 15G then even if the said forms were not submitted to the appropriate authorities, no disallowance can be made u/s. 40(a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
