TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 328
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....declaring nil income. The AO noticed that the assessee had purchased cement as raw-material from M/s Singhal Suplaires, Meerut and the total purchases during the year were Rs. 31,24,250/-. He noted that these purchases were made in cash only. The AO has reproduced a ledger a/c of M/s Singhal Suplaires from pages 3 to 16 of his order. The AO observed that after receiving the bill company started payment in cash amounting to Rs. 20,000/- on different dates on most of the occasions. He observed that each time cash above Rs. 2 lakhs was there in the books of the company but the company was making payment of Rs. 20,000/- only to M/s Singhal Suplaires. He referred to the decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Sh. Radhika Pra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce u/s 133(6) to Chacha Transport Co. to find out whether any cash payment against freight payment from M/s Continental cement Co. had been received by them or not. The AO had also enclosed some bills of Chacha Transport Co. The AO pointed out that proprietor of Chacha Transport Co., Shri Pyare Mohamd, attended on 22.3.2013 and denied having made any dealing with M/s Continental Cement Co. ( A unit of Tayal Concast Pvt Ltd.) during the period 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010. The AO has noted in this regard as under: "Sh. Pyare Mohand, Proprietor Chacha Transport co. attended the office on 22.3.2013 and his' statement on oath was recorded. In his statement he categorically denied to have made any dealing with M/s Continental Cement Co. (A Unit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idays and this chart was filed before ld. CIT(A). 8. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and have perused the record of the case. The first aspect to be considered is whether the decision for AY 2009-10 in assessee's own case is applicable to the facts of the present case or not. In the year under consideration also the AO has observed that the books were rejected u/s 145 but in substance AO has made separate addition in respect of various items. Once books are rejected then AO cannot make separate additions in respect of different items and, therefore, this observation of AO is not legally sustainable in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioenr of Sales Tax Vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yments were made on bank holidays, as noted at page 22 of the paper book, have not at all been considered by AO and, therefore, the same is to be examined by AO afresh. Further, ld. counsel has referred to page 12 of PB wherein details of payment over Rs. 20,000/- and less than Rs. 20,000/- is made aggregating to Rs. 3,69,407/- and this also needs to be examined by AO. Therefore, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes in respect of aforementioned observation. 10. Apropos ground no. 2 ld. counsel referred to page 37 of PB, wherein the statement of assessee dated 21.3.2013 is contained. In this regard he referred to page 39 wherein a question was put to assessee that Shri Pyare Mohamad denied any dealings with assessee and in that....