TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 1506
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the assessee as not pressed. 3. The Revenue in its appeal has taken the following grounds: "1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts admitting the additional evidences under Rule 46D r.w.s. 250(4) of the I.T. Act 1961 placed before him by the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings whereas such evidence could not have been admitted under the said provisions. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the relief Rs. 4,19,94,000/- on account of bogus purchases without taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and all the material on record. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the additional evidence produced by the assessee. We noted from the order of CIT(A) that in this case the assessee made the written submissions before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) asked for the remand report of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has given the remand report dated 16/072014. The said remand report has been produced by the CIT(A) under para 6.1 page 13 of his order. In view of this fact, it is not the case where the CIT(A) has not given an opportunity to the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, dismiss ground No. 1 taken by the Revenue. 6. Ground No. 2 & 3 relate to the same issue regarding the deletion of addition of Rs. 4,19,94,000/-. The facts related to this issue, in brief, are that the assessee is running a rolle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... considered the submissions and the arguments placed by the A.R. of the assessee and the contents of the assessment order and remand report dated 16-07-2014. The remand report has been submitted in response to my letter dated 09-06-2014 wherein, various points are discussed. The facts remains that the books of accounts of the assessee and the books of accounts of M/s. Annapurna Trading Company, proprietor Shri Har Narain 6upta are not rejected by the respective AO's. The AO has not pointed out any specific defects in the books of accounts and bills and vouchers maintained by the assessee which are duly audited and were produced before the AO three times, during original assessment, during re-assessment and during the remand proceedings.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urna Bhandar 300 15.000 195,000.00 4 Shri Hardoi Baba Roller Flour Mills 5100 255.000 3,116,100.00 5 Sandila Roller Flour Mill 4200 210.000 2,566,200.00 6 Annapurna Trading Company 67800 3390.000 41,994,000.00 7 Ajmani Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd 4560 228.000 2,785,200.00 8 Shri Ram Roller Flour Mills (I) Pvt. Ltd 32900 1645.000 20,469,925.00 9 Lucknow Roller Flour Mills 20400 1020.000 12,820,800.00 10 Bharat General Merchant 2470 123.500 1,593,800.00 11 R.J. Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. 2856 142.800 1,769,704.00 12 N.6. Roller Flour Mills 4200 210.000 2,604,000.00 13 Shanti Roller Flour Mills Limite....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were produced by Shri Har Narain Supta in re-assessment proceedings which is evident from the assessment order itself. Non-production of books of accounts in remand proceedings may not lead to the sole conclusion of bogus purchases made by the assessee from M/s. Annapurna Trading Company. The books of accounts produced by Shri Har Narain Gupta in re-assessment proceedings have already been verified by the AO. Thereby, the same cannot be made the sole reason for the addition on account of bogus purchases from M/s. Annapurna Trading Company. When the quantitative details of the assessee are not disturbed and rejected by the AO, there is no point of treating the purchases of 3390 M.T. of Maida from M/s. Annapurna Trading Company as bogus. Furt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eted. Accordingly, ground No. 3 to 5 are allowed." 7. Before us, Learned D. R. relied on the order of the Assessing Officer while Learned A. R. of the assessee relied on the order of learned CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival submissions, carefully considered the same along with the orders of the tax authorities below. We noted that this is a case where the Assessing Officer has not rejected the books of account of the assessee. The assessee has submitted all the details of the purchases and the sales. All the quantitative details of purchase and sales were filed. The books were duly produced before the Assessing Officer which were not rejected. The sales has been accepted by the Assessing Officer during the year. It is also not denie....