TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 504
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The facts in brief are that the premises of the assessee company were subjected to search and seizure action under Section 132 of the Act on 30.07.2009 along with other connected assessee's of the group. The assessee filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 10,98,47,908/- for the year under consideration on 30.12.2010. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") was issued. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee company was engaged in manufacturing and trading of metal sheets in the previous year relevant to the assessment year. The Assessing Officer also observed that during the course of search and seizure action, the Director of the assessee compan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....poses. The above submission of the assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. In the absence of any documentary evidence provided by the assessee such as name of the representative of the creditors, the representative confirmation etc., the explanation given by the assessee that the representative along with the person of the company used to go to bank to withdraw the money from their accounts and utilized in Rewadi or elsewhere, was also found illogical by the Assessing Officer. The ld AO also noticed that as the creditor was located at 'Yamunanagar' , how he felt the need of opening bank account in 'Rewari' which was almost 500 kilometers away from 'Yamunanagar' was not explained by the assessee. The Assessing Officer also observ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the purchases in reference were made not in the assessment year under consideration and hence no addition could be made in the year under consideration. The ld. Authorized Representative relying on page one of the paper book submitted that in the assessment year 2009-10, the assessee purchased copper scrap of Rs. 1,12,65,189/- from M/s. Shivalik Enterprises (HUF) and in assessment year 2010-11, there was an outstanding of Rs. 38,35,557/- on 27.04.2009 ( referred page 11 of the paper book) , which has been added by the Assessing Officer and after that an aggregate purchase of Rs. 3,35,69,237/- were made from Shivalik Enterprises (HUF) in that year( referred page 11-13 of the paper book) . Thus, accordingly to the ld. Authorized Representati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oices were tax paid and material purchased was accounted for in the excise records. 4. The ld. CIT(DR), on the other hand, in respect of the first proposition of the assessee that the addition should have been in assessment year 2009-10 ,submitted that this issue was not raised before the ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, this cannot be raised before the Tribunal at this juncture for first time. He further requested to issue direction to the Assessing Officer under Section 150 of the Act to reopen the proceedings for assessment year 2009-10 and reassess the case de-novo. As regard to the second proposition, ld CIT(DR) submitted that the facts and circumstances proved that M/s. Shivalik Enterprises (HUF) was mere an accommodation entry provider an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding to us the assessee has failed to discharge its Burdon of proof for requirement of section 68 of the Act regarding the creditor. In view of the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be provided one more opportunity to discharge its burden of proof in respect of the creditor. Accordingly, we restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the issue afresh in accordance to law. Needless to mention that the assessee shall be provided sufficient opportunity of being heard. As regards to the third proposition of the ld AR that the provision of section 68 of the Act are not applicable over the purchases, in view of the judgement of the CIT Vs Panchamdas Jain (s....