TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 1247
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sions 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 Appellant from time to time. 3. By disallowing out of legal and professional charges Rs. 18,300/- pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 that he does not press disallowance made by the lower authorities in respect of two parties namely M/s. M. Liladhar amounting to Rs. 2,57,827/- and M/s. Lincs Cargo ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 even were not disputed by the AO, it could not be said that the assessee had not purchased the products to the extent of quantity shown. However, the assessee could not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 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 the lower authorities and payments were made through banking channel to the agents who further made the payments to the farmers and most of the farmers have confirmed the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 so called mistakes and revision in the stocks. Therefore, the same cannot be relied upon. III) The learned ClT(A) has erred on facts and in the circumstances of the case in directing the AO t....