TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 444
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... section 69C of the Income tax Act ('the Act') by treating purchases as bogus purchases on account of (i) difference in balances of creditors amounting to Rs. 11,28,265 (ii) non receipt of reply from creditor parties amounting to Rs. 93,48,549. 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Appellant has neither furnished any inaccurate particulars nor concealed any particulars of income. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in completing the assessment on the basis of conjecture, mere suspicion and summarizing without any material or basis and by ignoring the relevant materials placed on records by the appellant in support of its submissions and therefore, the Appellant prays that addition of Rs. 1,04,76,814 may be de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the above grounds of appeal. 3. The A.O in this case made the impugned addition by observing as under:- "During the course of hearing, the assessee company was asked to produce confirmations in respect of transactions entered into by the assessee with number of parties. After perusal of the confirmations submitted and the details of purchases and other transactions made, it is found that the assessee company failed to submit the confirmations in respect of following parties :- S. No Name of the Party Nature of transaction Amounts (Rs.) 1. Online Infotainment Distributor's commission & expenses 24,00,339/- 2. Mega Infotainment Distributor's Commission 34,76,407/- 3. Net Magic Solutions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eply received 34,76,407 34,76,407 3. Net Magic solution Pvt. Ltd. Professional fees paid 33,27,803 No reply received 33,27,803 33,27,803 4. PAN India Infravest Pvt. Ltd. Purchase of lotteries 70,92,698 59,64,433 11,28,265 11,28,265 5. Microtek Internnationl P. Ltd. Purchase of computers 2,40,000 No reply received 2,40,000 1,44,000 (on account of depreciation). 6. CMC Ltd. Purchase of computers 30,81,148 No reply received. 30,81,148 18,48,689(on account of depreciation). Proposed Addition 1,01,65,203/- The assessee was intimated about the same and was asked to substantiate that the transaction entered into w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eness of the expenditure. Further, it is also important to note that the assessee has not been able to bring anything on the record, which may have proved that the confirmations were not provided by above parties due to any specific reason, such as dispute, litigation, etc., The amount involved in the above said transactions entered into with the above parties is not a small amount. The assessee has no plausible reason for not substantiating the genuineness of the above mentioned transactions by way of confirmations. In view of the same, the claim of expenses and depreciation on the purchase of computers purchased from above-mentioned parties is not found to be genuine. Therefore, it is treated as expenditure not laid out or expended who....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5 years from the end of previous year, the appellant has failed to furnish confirmation from these four parties and the AO's notices issued to these parties could not be served. Thus the transaction with these four parties has correctly been held to be not genuine and the disallowance of claim of expenses in these four parties amounting to Rs. 24,00,339/- Rs. 34,76,407/-, Rs. 33,27,803/-, Rs. 1,44,000/- respectively are confirmed. M/s PAN India Network Infravest Pvt. Ltd. The appellant has failed to furnish reconciliation of Rs. 11,28,265/- and has failed to furnish any evidence that the amount pertain to TDS certification, hence, addition of Rs. 11,28,265/- is confirmed. M/s CMC Ltd. The AO in the remand report ....