TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 455
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance made by the Learned Assessing Officer of Rs. 20,00,000/- from the current year's purchases considering same as non-genuine and unexplained expenditure without considering the fact that the said purchases were used in construction and complete details of purchase and consumption were provided during the course of the Assessment and Appellate proceedings. 2. The Appellant craves leave, to add, amend, alter, modify and 1 or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal as the situation may warrant, on or before the date of hearing of appeal. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that the assessee company is engaged in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AO that the assessee company has shown the Purchase Cost as under:- F.Y. ended Purchase Cost (Rs.) 31.03.2007 78997 31.03.2008 19800851 31.03.2009 28378533 31.03.2010 28226547 6. Vide order sheet noting dated 21.12.2012, the AR of the assessee was asked to furnish the purchase orders, delivery challans, Goods Receipt Notes and purchase invoices. The assessee was also asked to furnish the party-wise and yearwise details of purchases made by it since the year of commencement of the project. In response, vide its AR's letter dated 04.01.2013, the assessee furnished copies of purchase invoices. By the said letter, the AR of the assessee has stated that in some cases goods were delivered with Delivery Challa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the tune of Rs. 96,88,752/-. Vide order sheet noting, dated 13.03.2013, the AR of the assessee was asked to justify its claim of purchases purported to have been made from Karma Ispat Limited. The assessee was also asked to show cause as to why the purchases claimed to have been made from Karma Ispat Limited totaling Rs. 1,16,88,752/- not be treated as bogus purchases and accordingly the opening and closing work-in-progress be re-worked out after reducing the respective amounts of purchases claimed during the financial years 2008-09 & 2009-10 in respect of the said party. In response, the AR explained that the assessee relies upon its earlier submissions and the supporting documents furnished by it in the course of scrutiny proceedings o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion:- "After careful perusal of the assessment order and written submissions of the A/R of the appellant, it transpires that the appellant made purchases amounting to Rs. 96,88,752/-from M/s Karma Ispat Ltd. during F.Y.2008-09-relevant-to A.Y.2009-10 and Rs. 20 Lacs during F.Y.2009-10 relevant to A.Y.2010-11. The AO has recomputed the opening & closing WIP for A.Y.2010-11 by deducting the amount of purchases which has been challenged by the appellant in appeal. According to the AO, since the appellant has failed to produce the genuineness of the purchases from Karma Ispat Limited for F.Y.2008-09 relevant to A.Y.2009-10,. the same was deducted from opening WIP as on 01.04.2009. The A/R of the appellant has stated d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... careful perusal of the assessment order and written submissions filed by the A/R of the appellant it has been observed that me AR' of the assessee has failed to produce the GRN/Lorry receipt etc. to prove the actual purchases of goods. The case of the assessee is covered by the judgement of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of J.R. Solvent Industries (P.) Ltd. (2012) 22 taxmann.com.115 in which it has been held that where the appellant failed to produce the selling dealer alongwith his books of account, the assessee cannot claim the purchase of goods. The assertion of the A/R of the appellant that we have been given to understand that the seller had paid appropriate VAT on the goods sold is only a presumption for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e CIT(A). 14. We have considered rival contentions and found that addition of Rs. 20,00,000 in respect of purchases from Karma Ispat Limited has been confirmed by the CIT(A) on the ground that assessee was failed to produce GRN / Lorry receipt to prove the actual purchaser of the goods, thereafter relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kachwala Gems and Punjab and Haryana High court in case of J.R.Solvent Industries Pvt. Ltd., the CIT(A) has upheld the addition. 15. However, in respect of similar purchases from Karma Ispat Limited during the A.Y.2009-10 which was disallowed by the AO in the A.Y.2010-11, but deleted by CIT(A), however, revenue is not in appeal for such deletion of Rs. 96,88,752/-, therefore....