TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 808
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee was manually selected for scrutiny. In scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 77,34,539/- on account of bogus purchases. The said addition was made on the basis of alleged concession recorded by the Chartered Accountant of the assessee. Apart from addition on account of bogus purchases, following additions were made : i. Differences in liability in the case of M/s. Kirti Construction Company Rs. 11,39,194/-. ii. Differences in account balances of three parties added as excess liability Rs. 28,769/-. iii. Disallowance of Personal expenditures and Agricultural income Rs. 5,29,281/-. Aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d for the addition the assessee cannot retract and assail the addition before the appellate forum. 3.1 With respect to second ground of appeal, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee had shown excess liability in assessment year 2007-08 in the name of M/s. Kirti Construction Company. The explanation furnished by the assessee was not supported by cogent evidence. Thus, the assessee was trying to mislead the authorities below by creating bogus liability amounting to Rs. 11,39,194/-. The ld. DR vehemently defended the assessment order and prayed for reversing the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 4. Per contra, Shri Nikhil Pathak appearing on behalf of the assessee strongly supported the findings of Commissioner of Income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after considering all the documents on record and the affidavit tendered by Chartered Accountant of the assessee deleted entire addition made on account of bogus purchases. 4.1 In respect of ground No. 2 of appeal the ld. AR submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer obtained information from M/s. Kirti Construction Company directly. As per books of M/s. Kirti Construction Company receivables from the assessee as on 31-03-2011were Rs. 4,83,944/-, whereas, in the Balance Sheet of assessee the liabilities in the name of M/s. Kirti Construction Company was shown at Rs. 16,23,138/-. The Assessing Officer made addition of difference between the two amounts. The ld. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition of bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 77,34,539/-. We find that the addition was made primarily on the basis of letter dated 21-02-2014 furnished by the Chartered Accountant of the assessee Shri S.V. Gandhi agreeing for the addition. It is an undisputed fact the addition on account of bogus purchases is not arising from the purchase of goods from hawala dealers. The Assessing Officer has made addition on the ground that the assessee has failed to furnish cogent documentary evidence to show purchase and transport of material. The assessee before the First Appellate Authority has filed sworn affidavit of the Chartered Account Shri S.V. Gandhi who had represented the assessee before the Assessing Officer. It has been alleged that the As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In ground No. 2 of the appeal the Revenue has assailed deleting of addition of Rs. 11,39,194/- being differences in liability shown in the case of M/s. Kirti Construction Company. A perusal of impugned order reveal that the difference between the accounts maintained by the assessee and M/s. Kirti Construction Company was reconciled by the assessee and the reconciliation statement was also furnished by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. The difference was mainly on account of security deposits and wrong entry passed by assessee in respect of VAT payments in the Financial Year 2006-07. After having considered the reconciliation statement, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition. The ld. DR has failed to cont....