9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ') along with questionnaire were issued and served on the assessee, in response to which the assessee filed the requisite details from time to time. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer observed from 26AS for the financial year 2017-18 and computation of income submitted by the assessee that the assessee has made purchases of Rs. 44,27,85,656/- from the following parties: Tax collected at source Collector & TAN TCS collected TCS claimed in current year Expenditure as per 26AS Asnani Kishan Trilokchand, TAN- PNEK120138 2,27,582 2,27,582 2,27,43,460 Girish Ashokkumar Gurnani, TAN- PNEG10481C 607 607 60,357 Golden Agencies. TAN- MUMG04380F 1,15,250 1,15,250 1,15,24,956 HH Traders Pvt Ltd, TAN- MUMH04730F 98,337 98,337 98,34,334 Hi Spiritz & Liquorz Lip. TAN-MUMH15069F 96 96 9,713 Honest Marketing Pvt Ltd. TAN-NSKH00907E 3,99,772 3,99,772 3,99,41,280 Kapil Spirits Pvt Ltd, TAN- PNEK08535C 8,029 3,315 3,31,500 Kapil Traders, TAN- PNEK07254C 3,315 3,315 8,02,900 Pratham Heera Sales Private Limited. TAN- NSKP04820E 5,01,797 5,01,797 5,01,56,246 Ravindra Vasudeo Jethwani, T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payments were made by the sister concerns, such purchases have been reflected in their Profit and Loss Account and they have filed their returns of income. Merely because the suppliers have done some error on their part, the assessee should not be penalized. The assessee also filed certain sample bills before the CIT(A) / NFAC to substantiate its case that the purchases are in the names of the sister concerns, the payments have been made by them, such purchases are reflected in their Profit and Loss Account and the PAN number of the assessee was wrongly punched in the invoices so raised, thereby causing the difference in 26AS on account of TCS. 8. However, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was also not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under: "6. Decision: The appellant in its ground of appeal assailed the AO in assessing the income by making the addition of Rs. 40,14,65,505/-. The appellant in its submission submitted that the TCS of sister concerns is reflecting in Form 26AS of the assessee due to mix up in quoting PAN by the suppliers. The appellant further submitted that it is a retail trader of liquor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the sister concerns and therefore, the addition u/s 69C made by the A.O. merely on the basis of incorrect TCS details reported by third parties in Form 26AS was not justified on facts and in law. 3] The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the A.O. had not brought any material on record to prove that the appellant had actually made unaccounted purchases to the tune of Rs. 40,14,65,505 apart from the incorrect reporting of TCS made by third parties in Form 26AS, the reason for which was duly explained by the appellant and therefore, the huge addition u/s 69C towards unexplained purchases made by the A.O. was apparently unjustified in law. 4] The appellant craves leave to add/ alter/ amend any of the grounds of appeal. 10. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making the addition of Rs. 40,14,65,505/- to the total income of the assessee u/s 69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Referring to page 13 of the paper book, he drew the attention of the Bench to the chart giving party-wise reconciliation of TCS as per books and TCS reflected as per Form 26AS. Referring to pages 14 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter being set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer. However, a direction may be given to the Assessing Officer to call for a report from the verification unit since there are voluminous bills, ledgers and bank statements to be examined to ascertain that the purchases are in fact made by the sister concerns of the assessee and the payments have been made by them and that such purchases have been reflected in their Profit and Loss Account and inadvertently the PAN number of the assessee has been punched by the suppliers. 13. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of both the sides. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case made addition of Rs. 40,14,65,505/- u/s 69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on the ground that the assessee failed to substantiate with evidence to his satisfaction regarding the difference between purchases shown in its Profit and Loss Account and the TCS reflected in Form 26AS. We find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer, the reasons of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
