AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1299
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A) assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds: "1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 19,51,632/- made by the learned A.O. in respect of disallowance of purchases made from five parties without appreciating that the addition was not warranted on facts of the case. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee was not able to give' the correct addresses of the five parties and the notices issued by the A.O. u/s 133(6) to these parties on the addresses given by the appellant were received back unserved and hence, the assessee was not able to prove the genuineness of the purchases made from the above parties and therefore, the said purchases were to be disallowed in this year. 3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had duly furnished the copies of purchase bills, contact numbers and PAN nos. of the above five parties and therefore, there was no reason to hold that purchases made from these parties were bogus merely because the summons issued by the A.O on the addresses given by the assessee were returned unserved and hence, the addition is no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) of the Act. He therefore submitted that only these two issues needs adjudication. 4. First issue is with respect to addition of Rs. 19,51,632/- on account of disallowance of purchases. 4.1 During the course of assessment proceedings AO noticed that assessee had made purchases from various parties. With respect to the 5 parties listed at page 2 of assessment order the aggregate purchases made from them amounted to Rs. 19,51,632/-. AO had issued notices u/s 133(6) and called for the details about the sales made by them to assessee like confirmations, income tax particulars etc. AO noticed that notices were returned unserved and assessee had only filed confirmation on its own letter head. The assessee was asked to produce the parties. Since the assessee could not produce the parties, the purchases aggregating to Rs. 19,51,632/- made by assessee from 5 parties were held by AO to be non-genuine and thus disallowed. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the additions by holding as under : "9. I have carefully considered the facts of the case as well as reply of the appellant. In this case, the appellant has failed to file indepen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A) be set aside. Ld. D.R. on the other hand supported the order of lower authorities and submitted that assessee has not furnished the details about the purchases either before the lower authorities nor has submitted those details before the Tribunal. In such circumstances, the order of ld. CIT(A) needs to be upheld. He thus supported the order of Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present case is with respect to the addition made on account of bogus purchases. It is an undisputed fact that assessee had made purchases aggregately to Rs. 19,51,632/- from 5 parties, (the details of which are listed at page 2 of the Assessment Order), the notices sent u/s 133(6) by the AO to the aforesaid 5 parties calling for various details were returned unserved and the assessee was therefore asked to produce the parties or provide alternative addresses. AO has noted that despite various opportunities, the assessee did not produce the parties for verification nor has produced any details to support the purchases made. Ld. CIT(A) has also noted that assessee was not able to furnish details regarding the address of the parties as w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....000/- compared to Rs. 2.5 to 3 lacs p.a. received by other employees doing similar work. The appellant's grievance regarding executives functioning in similar capacity in other institutions gets addressed by the fact that Assessing Officer has allowed Rs. 8,40,000/- to Mrs. Divya Kharbanda. Considering the totality of facts, it is held that the Assessing Officer has been quite reasonable in computing the disallowance and therefore, I do not find any necessity in interfering the order of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the disallowance of Rs. 8,40,000/- is upheld and Ground NO.3 is dismissed." 9. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us. 10. Before us, Ld.A.R. reiterated the submissions made before AO and ld. CIT(A) and further submitted that Mrs. Divya Karbhanda has been drawing similar salary for past more than three years and there has been no sudden increase in the salary paid and the same salary was drawn by her since F.Y. 2007-08. It was further submitted that Mrs. Divya Kharbanda is a regular tax payer and the amount of salary has been disclosed by her in her return of income and that Mrs.Divya and the assessee are covered under max....