TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 340
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. First we shall take up the appeal of revenue in ITA No. 2386/Kol/2016 for the A.Y 2012-13 by the revenue. 4. The only issue in this appeal is to be decided as to whether the CIT-A is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,93,79,530/- made on account of difference in purchase made by the AO violating Rule 46A of the IT Rules 1962 in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The ld. DR submits that the AO found difference in purchase of goods. For failing to establish the genuineness by producing any supporting documents i.e ledger and proof of payments etc, the AO added an amount of Rs. 2,93,79,530/- to the total income of assesse. He also submits the CIT-A deleted the said addition taking into considerations the submissions of assesse without affording any opportunity to the AO for verification of re-conciliation statements filed by the assesse before the CIT-A. The ld.DR relied on the order of the AO. 6. On the other hand, the ld. AR submits that the assesse filed reconciliation of purchase by its letter dt. 20-03-2015 before the AO. But, however, without considering the same, the AO arbitrarily added the entire purchase to the total income of assesse. The ld....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of hearing. However, without allowing further opportunity, sum of Rs. 2,93,79,530 has been disallowed out of purchases. It is submitted that all the accounts of the appellant are fully reconciled. An itemwise and partywise reconciliation statement is submitted herewith marked Annexure - C. As this is fresh statement submitted before your honour, the appellant requests you to accept the same. It is submitted that the purchases having been fully reconciled, the act of the learned A.O disallowing a sum of Rs. 2,93,79,530.00 is wrong and it is prayed that the same may be allowed in appeal. Later on the appellant was informed telephonically, by the learned A.O. that your honour asked for a remand report on the appellant submission and the appellant was accordingly asked to reconcile the advances vis-a-vis purchases of NGR Wheat along with the supporting evidence. The case was adjourned to 5th September,2016. The Appellant in response to said requisition filed a letter alongwith all the relevant note sheets. The said letter read as follows:- "This refers to the discussion during the course of hearing of Remand Proceedings on 2910812016, wherein we were asked to reconcile the differenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 3,88,78,900 b) Damdama Union - Rs. 53,27,000 c) Gangarampur - Rs. 62,06,000 Rs. 5.04,11,900 The final reconciliation statement after considering the above clerical errors should be as follows:- Purchase as per Trading Account 3,75,48,63,298.00 Add:- Credit Figure in Purchase Ledger 34,21,864.00 (as per para 1 (d) above) Less :- Reversal of Double Entry Dakshin Dinajpur 1,39,60,000.00 (as per para 1 (f) above) Less :- Reversal of Double Entry Damdama 6,07,448.00 (as per para 1 (f) above) Less :- Total ITC & Bank Charge Adjustment in Creditors Ledger 33,07,485.00 (as per para 1 (h) above) Less :- Cash Purchase not included purchase list submitted 3,56.112.00 (as per para 1 (e) above) Total 3,77,58,03,983.00 Purchase Above Rs. 1,00,000.00 3,38,11,06,453.00 (as per para 1( a) above) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t you to please send an amended remand report after verification of the said bill on or before the above date for consideration of learned CIT(A)-12, Kolkata in the above appeal case. " It is, therefore, now submitted that the appellant has been able to adduce sufficient supporting evidences in support of genuineness of the claim of purchases/payment of advances and prays your honour to delete the addition of Rs. 2,93,79,530/-." The Issue was remanded to the AO for examination and report. The AO m his remand stated as follows:" The assessee's Authorised Representative came on 29.08.2016 and discussion was held on the alleged issue of advanced against NGRWheat of Rs. 2,78,59,583. He was asked to produce the original bill vouchers of the said transaction which were also asked for submission at the time of assessment. Assessee submitted a written explanation (enclosed) of the above mentioned amount. Wherein he explained that due to various clerical mistakes the difference had occurred. He had submitted only reconciliation statement without any documentary evidence like bill vouchers against the correct amount. In the absence of such documentary evidence the under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the same and other grounds of appeal may be allowed in appeal and for this act of kindness we shall be ever grateful to you. 3.4 I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the appellant as well as the remand report and the rejoinder to the remand report filed by the appellant during the course of the hearings. A sum of Rs. 2,93,79,530 has been disallowed out of purchases by the AO on the ground that as he has not produced any supportive document like ledger / proof of payment etc. The appellant has submitted their revised reconciliation as evident from their submissions noted above. The main point made by the AO in his remand report is "He had submitted only reconciliation statement without any documentary evidence like bill vouchers against the correct amount. In the absence of such documentary evidence the undersigned is not in agreement with the view of the assessee." The appellant in their rejoinder to the remand report has stated that "We duly reconciled the said advance and submitted copies of note sheets for sanction of the said advances and its subsequent adjustment. As already informed to your honour, ours is a state level consumer's cooper....