TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 999X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, are directed against the orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short the ld. CIT(A) ], which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144 r.w.s 147 and a penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 2. First, we shall take ITA No.41/SRT/2022 for AY.2012-13, wherein the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, are as follows: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in passing exparte order without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to assessee. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred confirming the action of assessing officer in imposing penalty of Rs.7,34,48,950/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. It is therefore prayed that penalty imposed by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance with law. Therefore, we allow the appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No.41/SRT/2022 for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No.41/SRT/2022) is allowed for statistical purposes. 7. Now, we shall take assessee`s appeal in ITA No.40/SRT/2022, wherein the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NGAC has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in issuing notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs.64,00,000/- as unexplained credits u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. It is therefore prayed that addition made by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may please be deleted. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal. 8. Succinct facts qua gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment. The Ld. Counsel took us through the original assessment order dated 30.03.2015 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein the Assessing Officer has discussed the issue of unverifiable purchases and made the addition to the tune of Rs.23,79,26,834/- vide para no. 5 and 5.1 of the original assessment order which is reproduced below: 5. Unverifiable Purchases: During the assessment proceedings, the assessee has made total purchases amounting to Rs.95,17,07,336/- from various parties. As the assessee has failed to furnish any written information/documents with relation to the purchases made during the year under consideration, ex parte assessment has been finalized. This fact leads to only one conclusion that the purchases shown by the assessee are unverifiable. Since the purchases are not verifiable in toto, it is needless to reiterate that in respect of claim of any expenditure, the entire onus lies upon the assessee to prove that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The word wholly refer to the quantum of expenditure. The word ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see has furnished, during the assessment proceedings, the entire details and documents and genuineness of the documents were not doubted by the assessing officer. The assessee submitted the following documents before the Assessing Officer: (i) Letter filed before Assessing Officer, dated 23.11.2019 (vide Pb. 19 to 25) (ii) Letter filed before Assessing Officer, dated 20.11.2019 (vide Pb. 26 to 27) (iii) Letter filed before Assessing Officer, dated 18.11.2019 (vide Pb. 28 to 34) (iv) Ledger copy of M/s Delight Diam Pvt. Ltd. (vide Pb. 35) (v) Ledger copy of M/s Bafna Exim Pvt. Ltd. (vide Pb.36) (vi) Bank Statement of M/s Sona Enterprises (Assessee`s business Concern) indicating payment made to Delight Diam Pvt Ltd M/s Bafna Exim Pvt. Ltd. for purchases made (vide Pb. 37 to 45) Therefore, based on these documents and details, the ld Counsel contended that assessee had proved the genuineness of the transactions, hence addition made by the assessing officer may be deleted. 13. The Ld. Counsel also took us through the paper book page nos.35, wherein it is stated that amount has been repaid in the same year, therefore addition should not be made by the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. 15. On merits, Ld. DR submitted that assessee has not explained the genuineness of the transactions and therefore it is a case of bogus purchase relating to the various concern of Mr. Pravin Kumar Jain, and assessee was engaged in taking accommodation entries only. Therefore, addition made by the Assessing Officer should be sustained. 16. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the facts of the case including the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and other material brought on record. We find merit in the arguments of ld Counsel that repayment of loan and purchases were made in the same year by the assessee, therefore addition should not be made. We note that assessee has submitted the ledger copy of M/s Delight Diam Pvt. Ltd. which is paced at paper book page no. 35. The ledger copy of M/s Bafna Exim Pvt. Ltd. which is placed at paper book page no.36. The statement of M/s Sona Enterprise (assessee business concern) indicating payment made to M/s Delight Diam Pvt Ltd and M/s Bafna Exim Pvt. Ltd. for purchases made, which is placed at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing Officer made addition of Rs.23,82,34,900/- on account of bogus purchases. Later on reassessment proceedings were initiated under section 147 of the Act and assessment was framed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 31.12.2019. In the said reassessment proceedings, the bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.49,00,000/- (Rs.45,00,000 + Rs.4,00,000) was again added by the Assessing Officer, which amounts to double taxation. Since, the above amount of Rs.49,00,000/- was disallowed by Assessing Officer in original assessment, therefore the same amount of Rs.49,00,000/- should not be disallowed in reassessment proceedings. Hence, addition made by Assessing Officer in reassessment proceedings is not sustainable in law. Hence, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the Assessing Officer in any manner and hence the addition of Rs.64,00,000/- (49,00,000 + 15,00,000) so made is deleted. Hence this ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed. 19. Since, we have allowed the appeal of the assessee based on the fact that amount has been paid by the assessee in the assessment year itself, therefore other arguments made by the ld Counsel in respect of ground No.1 challenging the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
