TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 996
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in deleting the addition of Rs. 28,85,739/- on account of damaged/expired goods. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 20,23,766/- on account of non-genuine payment to M/s. Saffroys. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 48,88,550/- on account of bogus purchases." 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of drugs and pharmaceuticals. The A.O. observed that on verification of p&l account, it is transpired that the assessee had debited Rs. 7,94,441/- under the head 'expired goods'. However, for the goods replaced worth Rs. 1,46,60,484/- does not ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, it has been noticed that the Assessing Officer had made addition only on the basis of statements of two employees of the Appellant Company who were not looking after sales/marketing/goods returned/destroyed. It was also admitted by both these employees that no record of goods destroyed were maintained. The Assessing Officer was required to investigate further for disproving the claim of the Appellant was not done in the present case. Further, books were treated as authentic since these were not rejected u/s 145 before estimating the goods returned/damaged. It is also evident from the statements of both these employees that the statements were given only on the basis of memory without reference to any documentary evidence. Hence, their s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....centage of goods damaged/expired varied from .75% in 1998-99 to 4.3% in 2003-04. It was argued that when new product is launched, it takes some time to get the product accepted by the market and during the initial period the manufacturers have to make avail the product in all markets but it get accepted only in few areas in first instance. These facts were before the A.O. at the time of assessment order. The Department in subsequent year i.e. A.Y. 2006-07, 07-08 & 08-09 had accepted the figure on account of expired/damaged goods. The Department only relied upon the statements of person dealing with the production who were not aware of the fact as damaged and expired of goods were being dealt by the marketing staff even in statement also the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f being heard on this issue. The appellant claimed before the A.O. that this payment was genuine and also filed confirmation, but ld. A.O. does not satisfy with the confirmation as he found various defects in the confirmation. Thus, she made addition of Rs. 20,23,766/- as wrong deduction claimed by the assessee in the name of M/s. Saffroys. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee carried the matter before ld. CIT(A), who had allowed the appeal by observing as under: "4.1 I have carefully considered the contentions of Learned Counsel as well as gone through the records. On perusal of assessment order, it has been noticed that the purchase of machinery was made during earlier year and payment was outstanding duri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... IT Law, which has not been used by her. In absence of any contrary evidence against the appellant, the addition cannot be confirmed. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the CIT(A). 10. Ground no. 3 is against deleting the addition of Rs. 48,88,550/- on account of bogus purchase. The A.O. observed that during the course of search on the basis of material found and seized, it was traced out that the assessee company had debited bogus purchase to reduce profit thereby reduce tax liability. The appellant asked to file party wise details of purchase which were filed by the appellant which has been reproduced by the A.O. on page nos. 7 to 9 of the assessment order. The ld. A.O. further identified from the purchase details that 18 parties men....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of any seized documents which were not relevant to the year under consideration without any incriminating document relevant for the present assessment year in the possession of the Assessing Officer. Keeping in view of above facts and circumstances of the case, the addition is hereby deleted and the fourth ground of appeal is allowed." 12. Now the revenue is before us. Ld. CIT D.R. vehemently relied upon the order of the A.O. and argued that in settlement, the assessee it has disclosed in past under this head an additional income. It proves that the appellant had debited the bogus purchase during the year. Whatever bogus parties' names admitted before the Settlement Commission were also there under the year under consideration. At the ....