TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 1078
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de by the learned Assessing Officer. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the additions without considering the same on merits. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,51,974/- by way of disallowance of interest. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 11,62,184/- as unexplained purchases. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in issuing directions to enhance income without any valid basis or authority and without giving a valid notice and fair opportunity to the assessee. 6. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is arbitrary, illegal and invalid." 3. At the time of hearing before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee company when the appeal was called for hearing. It was observed by the Bench that there were similar non-appearance by the assessee company on earlier occasions when the appeal was called for hearing on earlier occasions. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of this appeal after hearing the learned D.R.. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is dealer in timber a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eas no such purchases had been shown in the list of purchases filed during the assessment proceedings with the A.O. . Similarly, in the list of purchases filed during the course of assessment proceedings, the purchases shown at Rs. 4,07,256/- were made from Kanara Wood & Plywood Industries Ltd., but this name does not appear in the list of sundry creditors filed on 8th October, 2009. On going through the copy of VAT return for the financial year 2006- 07 filed by the assessee company, the total purchases were shown at Rs. 8,58,419/- for the quarter from 1.1.2007 to 31.3.2007 as against purchases of Rs. 27,77,731/- made in the month of March, 2007. Thus, it was observed by the A.O. that the assessee company has furnished incorrect details of purchases and tried to justify it in the name of typing error and in view of the above , the A.O. added the difference in amount of Rs. 11,62,184/- to the total income of the assessee company as the details submitted with the bank as well as the purchases in P&L account did not tally, vide assessment orders dated 21-12-2009 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Similarly, the A.O. observed that the assessee company has debited an amount of Rs. 1,51,974....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1,51,974/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee company , vide assessment orders dated 21.12.2009 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act. 5.Aggrieved by the assessment orders dated 21.12.2009 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). 6. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee company submitted that it has been maintaining books of account as per law which are duly audited. All details were furnished before the A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the Act. There was an typing error in the statement of sundry creditors with regard to the aggregate of purchases made by the assessee company. However, the A.O. made an addition of Rs. 11,62,184/- as unexplained purchases being the difference between the two figures i.e. the purchases in the P&L account and another is aggregate of purchases as per the statement given by the assessee company during assessment proceedings. The explanations regarding the error committed by the assessee company has been duly explained but still the addition has been made was the contention of the assessee company. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces given to the M/s Maklai Timber Mart . The learned CIT(A) upheld the assessment order dated 21-12-2009 passed by the A.O. u/s 143(3) of the Act, vide appellate orders of the learned CIT(A) dated 27-09-2010. 7. Aggrieved by the appellate orders dated 27-09-2010 of the learned CIT(A), the assessee company is in second appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The learned D.R. strongly supported the appellate orders of the learned CIT(A) while he fairly admitted that no notice was served on the assessee company before enhancing the assessment by the learned CIT(A) , whereby direction were issued to the A.O. to add GP on the unrecorded purchases. 9. We have heard the learned D.R. and also perused the material available on record. We have observed that there is a difference between the purchases shown as per the P&L account and the sundry creditors details filed by the assessee company before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the Act. The A.O. observed from the stock statement on 31st March, 2007 submitted to the Saraswat bank wherein the purchases of timber/plywood made by the assessee company in March, 2007 were to the extent of Rs. 1....