TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 1247
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 40(a)(ia) Rs. 23,91,398/-. b. Not considering the submissions made by appellant that he is not liable for deducting TDS from the bills the agents have already deducted tax at source from transport charges and one of the parties has been issued certificate for nondeduction of taxes at source. 2. a. Making addition under section 69C of the Income Tax Act on account of unconfirmed unproved purchases from certain parties Rs. 25,68,750/-. b. Ignoring the submissions of appellant that the goods purchased from the parties are farmers and said goods have been exported which is verifiable by documentary evidence. c. Giving technical reasons for rejecting the purchases made genuinely, because all the notices issued by AO have been duly served. d. Applying the ratio of Delhi High Court judgement in the case of CIT vs. LA Medica (2001) 250 ITR 575 (Delhi) although the facts are different and not applicable in the Appellant's case. e. By treating the purchases of Rs. 25,68,750/-, unsubstantiating, unverified, unproved on account of failure of the appellant to discharge the necessary burden of proof and ignoring the submissions made by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deducted were in the nature of reimbursement of expenses incurred on behalf of assessee by the concerned clearing and forwarding agents. Therefore, the TDS was not required to be deducted and even in some cases the TDS was deducted by the agents from transports on behalf of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) however rejected the above contentions of the assessee. He, however, observed that the assessee had submitted a certificate under section 197(1) of the Act dated 07.04.06 issued by ITO TDS-3(5), Mumbai upon which a remand report was also called by him from the AO, wherein, the AO had reported that so far as addition of Rs. 19,23,133/- on account of non deduction of TDS with respect to M/s. Velji Dossabhai & Sons Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, the certificate submitted by the assessee be considered and relief may be allowed. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, directed the AO not to make any disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of the payments made to M/s. Velji Dossabhai & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Regarding the remaining three parties he confirmed the disallowance. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee has come in appeal before us. 10. The Ld. A.R. of the assessee has stated at bar tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....33(6) were issued by the AO to these parties asking them to furnish their confirmations of the sales made to the assessee. The AO observed that out of several notices sent to the various parties under section 133(6), the confirmations were received from most of the parties except in respect of 5 parties. Thereafter, the assessee was asked to produce these 5 parties in person. However, the assessee could not produce these parties before the AO for verification. The assessee, however, produced confirmations from the said parties. However, the AO disbelieved the said confirmation stating that these were mere copies of accounts extracted from the assessee's books itself containing the parties name on which signatures were scribbled. In view of this, the AO held the purchases in respect of 5 parties as bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 10,27,21,404/- and added the said amount into the income of the assessee under section 69C of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 12. The Ld. CIT(A), after going through the evidences on the file, observed that from the quantitative details of purchase and sales shown by the assessee in its books of account, which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....confirmations. The assessee filed evidences e.g. xerox copies of registered acknowledgement, ledger confirmations letters, copy of accounts, export sales invoices, extracted of bank statement, copy of purchase invoices and sales tax assessment order of Karnataka State Government wherein the purchases have been assessed. The facts on the file established that the purchases were made by the assessee and the same were duly reflected in his accounts. The AO made the additions holding that the entire purchases were bogus, which fact has been duly rebutted by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) has held that the assessee might have made the purchases in cash. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has held that the assessee might have made the purchases in cash. He also rejected the contention of the assessee that the payments were made by the assessee through banking channels to the agents and they further passed on the same to the farmers. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the quantitative purchase and sales were shown by the assessee in the books of account, the commodities were actually exported and the sales were accepted by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In the light of above stated legal position, we do not find justification for the addition made by the lower authorities in this respect. Hence, the additions made by the lower authorities on account of bogus purchases under section 69C of the Act are therefore ordered to be deleted. 15. In view of our above observation, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 16. Now coming to the Revenue's appeal i.e. ITA No.4575/M/2012. ITA No.4575/M/2012 17. The Revenue in its appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: "I) The learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in the circumstances of the case in directing the AO to accept the revised return and deleting the addition made on account of excess stock, ignoring the fact that the revised return was rejected due to failure of the assessee to substantiate downward revision of the closing stock in the revised return and not the validity of return. II) The learned CIT(A) on facts and circumstances of the case has failed to appreciate that the AO in his assessment order has clearly brought out factual errors and inconsistencies and self contradictory statements in respect of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ck as on 31.03.07 and accordingly the return was filed. However, to rectify the mistake, a revised return was filed by the assessee on 17.01.08, which was filed within the limitation period prescribed under section 139(5) of the Act. The AO, however, rejected the above contention of the assessee and finalized the assessment on the basis of original return filed. 20. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) observed from the quantitative details of sales and purchases of the two items, as stated above, that the entire quantity of the said two items was sold/exported during the relevant year under consideration and no closing stock of these items was left with the assessee at the end of the relevant accounting year. That the assessee had duly explained the mistake resulting in showing the excess stock and the said mistake was duly rectified by filing a revised return within the limitation period prescribed. On account of these facts and evidences, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the AO was not justified in rejecting the revised return filed by the assessee. He held that the mistake of wrongly showing the closing stock at the enhanced value of Rs. 80,98,900/- was fully verified and the same being inadve....