TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1234
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the assessee, manufacturer of deoiled cake and refined oils had filed its return declaring a total income of Rs. 2,43,310/- electronically on 30.10.2007 for the impugned assessment year. There was a survey u/s.133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' in short) in the business premises of the assessee on 02.11.2006. During the course of survey proceedings it seems certain loose sheets were found which reflected therein certain cash purchases made by the assessee. AO listed out the cash purchases from the loose sheets. Such purchases pertained to the month of October 2006 and aggregated to a sum of Rs. 2,15,05,363/-. Purchases were made from 37 parties of which AO summoned 25 persons issuing summons u/s.131 of the Act. Their sworn st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... u/s.69 of the Act and made an addition thereof. 05. Aggrieved assessee moved in appeal before the CIT (A). Argument of the assessee was that thirteen parties had never confirmed any sale of goods to the assessee. As per the assessee such unconfirmed amounts itself came to Rs. 16,54,143/-. Further as per the assessee there were duplicate bills included in the list compiled by the AO which totalled to Rs. 42,63,036/-. Since assessee brought to the notice of CIT (A) that the persons whose statements were recorded by the AO were never cross examined by it, CIT (A) sought a remand report from the AO. It seems in the remand report dt.18.03.2011, AO stated that a sum of Rs. 42,63,036/-, out of total Rs. 2,15,05,363/- considered as unexplained in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the order of CIT (A) submitted that the loose sheets found from the premises of the assessee had clearly recorded purchases made by the assessee. Relying on Annexure-1 to the assessment order, Ld. DR submitted that all the details like date of purchase, , name of the seller, commodity, quantity and price were mentioned in such loose sheets. As per the Ld. DR, these purchases were never recorded in the books of account of the assessee. Thus as per the Ld. DR these were nothing but unexplained investment made by the assessee for purchase. Since assessee was not able to show the source for funds used for these purchases, according to Ld. DR, the amount was rightly added u/s.69 of the Act. As per the Ld. DR though the sum of Rs. 42,63,036/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g to him, addition was made purely on surmises. 09. We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. AO has listed out 250 items in the annexure to the assessment order showing purchases worth Rs. 2,15,05,364/-. In the course of remand proceedings it was accepted by the AO that the said amount contained duplication of bills to the extent of Rs. 42,63,036/-. It was also accepted by the AO that bill for Rs. 5,01,331/- was accepted by one supplier to be a duplicate one. One, M/s. Murali Industries who was summoned had denied any transactions with the assessee. The alleged transactions with Murali Industries by itself came to Rs. 20,18,690/-. AO has himself stated that out of 37 parties he had issued summons only to 25 persons. Reve....