TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 1139
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or DR, and Shri S.S. Deshpande, learned counsel for the assessee. First we shall take up the appeal of the Revenue wherein the Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 77,10,534/- ignoring the fact that as per the Mandi Rules, the payment against the purchases to the farmers is to be done on the date of purchases and if the assessee has acted otherwise, the onus is on him to prove the same more specifically when the assessee did not produce the farmers for verification of his claim The learned Senior DR advanced his argument which is identical to the ground raised by further submitting that the payments to such farmers were made by the assessee through undisclosed sources and the claim of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laimed that the return filed on 27.8.2007 may be treated to be filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. The copy of the reasons recorded was provided to the assessee on 20.4.2010. Thereafter, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 18.4.2011 to which the assessee responded and furnished the details. The assessee was asked as to why the amount not recorded in the books of accounts on the date of transaction should not be added to his income. The assessee filed its reply as has been reproduced in para 2 onwards of the assessment order. The assessee also placed reliance upon certain decisions which have been mentioned at page 7 of the assessment order. The assessee was asked to produce the farmers who sold their goods on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roadly on the observation that no complaint was made to the Mandi Samiti by the farmers for non-payment on the same day and the addition was made by the Assessing Officer on assumption and presumption. If the totality of facts, available on record and the assertion made by the learned respective counsel, are kept in juxtaposition and analysed, one fact is oozing out that the assessee was expected to furnish the complete names and addresses of the farmers from whom the Kapas was purchased but that was not done by the assessee. Normally there is proximate relation between the farmers/seller and the assessee/purchaser in such type of business. If the farmers are unknown and are from distant places then no farmer will sell its crops/Kapas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... turnover exceeds this limit, normally it is expected to be less profit. From the record we found that the assessee has actually purchased the goods and also made payment for the same. The goods so purchased were also sold and profit on sales was offered in the regular course of business. The entries regarding payment were made by the assessee as per the dates noted in the Mandi bills/receipts. The entries of payment were made on the respective dates whereas entries for purchases were made on the dates the purchases were made. The plea of the Assessing Officer was that Mandi Rules do not permit payment of dues to the farmers at a later date. In the instant case, the payments were actually made at later dates as per Mandi receipt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nged. The assessee has filed written submissions/ synopsis which has been considered by us. We find that the proceedings u/s 147/148 were also challenged before the learned CIT(A) who, after recording a detailed reasoning, decided the issue against the assessee. The assessee has also relied upon the decision from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Usha International Limited (253 CTR 113), Kalyanji Maoji & Co.; 102 ITR 287 (SC), Esskey Engg. Co. Pvt. Ltd.; 247 ITR 818 (SC) and Purshottamdas Bangar & Others; 224 ITR 362. On the other hand, the learned Senior DR strongly defended the order of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the proceedings initiated u/s 147. 4.1 We have considered the riva....