TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 1275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not have any force. As no merit in the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the ld.CIT(A). accordingly, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned addition. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA NO 3520/DEL/2019 - - - Dated:- 22-9-2020 - SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Assessee by : Shri P.C. Yadav, Adv Shri Lalit Mohan, CA For the Revenue by : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)- 38, New Delhi dated 19.03.2019 pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16. 2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.7,99 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M M/S SHA ENGINEERING WORKS 51000 Confirmed 8 AAHPG7462K M/S USHA TRANSFORMERS CONTROLS (P) LTD 22845559 Confirmed 9 ARHPS4041H M/S UV INTERNATIONAL 4176 Payment already made on 20.05.2014 10 AADPV0103A J.P. Industries (Delhi) 567713 No response 11 AAAFB0982G B.P. Chemical (FaridaBad) 227284 No response 12 AATFA4584G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... U.V. International Rs. 4,176/- ii) M/s J.P. Industries Rs. 5,67,713/- iii) M/s B.P. Chemicals Rs. 2,27,484/- 8. Before me, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that the creditors are outcome of the purchases made from them and the Assessing Officer has not drawn any adverse inference in so far as total purchases are concerned. The learned counsel further stated that the Assessing Officer has accepted the sales made out of the said purchases. It is the say of the learned AR that on such transactions, no addition can be made under section 68 of the Act. 9. Per contra, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer. 10. I have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. The total purc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e bogus by the AO. It was found that the purchase consideration got deposited in a bank account of an employee in Calcutta, which was opened with the introduction of the assessee. No such enquiry was made in this case. In the case of La Medica (supra), it was also not the case that sales were effected from the purchases made and, thus, the purchases could not be outrightly termed as bogus.We are of the view that the facts of the two cases are distinguishable. In absence of displacing the finding of the leamed CIT(A) and the fact that the assessee showed profit from these transactions, it is held that there is no such error in the orderof the leamed CIT(A) which requires correction from us. Thus, this ground is dismissed. ii) 310 ITR 99 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 938/DEL/2018 dated 21.05.2019, which has been authored by me, needs mention wherein it has been held as under: 8. I have carefully considered the order of the authorities below. It is not in dispute that the A.O made impugned addition of Rs. 4,97,5g9/- treating the purchases as bogus expenses. It is equally true that the purchases were debited in the regular books of account of the assessee. The sales out of the purchases were accepted by the A.O. I further find that the notices issued by the A.O on the address of Ms Kumar Sales were duly served. Nothing prevented the A.O to issue summons to M/s Kumar Sales to force its attendance and examine the transaction. I further find that the CIT(A) realisingthat Section 69C is not applicable on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
