TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 1054
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2014-15 are concern, the tax effect in both the appeals are below prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 50 lac in view of CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019. He has filed a separate tax calculation wherein the tax on disputed amount for the Assessment Year 2012-13 is Rs. 24,12,788/- and Rs. 32,91,299/- for the Assessment Year 2014-15. 3. Ld. DR also admitted that the tax effect on the disputed issue is much below Rs. 50 lacs. 4. Accordingly in view of CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019, the appeals of the Revenue for the Assessment Years 201-13 and 2014-15 are dismissed as not maintainable. 5. In so far as appeal relating to Assessment Year 2012-13 in the case of M/s. Jackson Engineering Ltd. in ITA No.6066/Del/2016, the R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eeta Gutgutia, (2017) 325 ITR 526. Apart from the legal issue, on merits also the assessee submitted that the notices issued u/s.133(6) to M/s. New Jain Spares was responded late by the said party and the said party has filed its reply on 19.04.2016 before the Assessing Officer along with following documentary evidences like confirmation of account; income tax return, VAT return, bank statement in pen drive. Ld. CIT (A) in so far as validity of the addition within the scope of assessment u/s.153A has observed that same was not pressed. Accordingly, the same was dismissed by the Ld. CIT (A). However, on merits the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the said addition after observing and holding as under: "4.4 Ground No.08 in Assessment Years 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t details with bank statement copies the AO accepted the purchases from 38 parties in all these cases. In respect of purchase from M/s New Jain Spares (NJS) the appellant had replied before the AO on 29.03.2016 that this party was not cooperative with them and was not willing to furnish the confirmation/details, duly mentioned at para 4.4 page 4 of the order, and therefore the AO treated the purchase from NJS as bogus in both the cases and in all these assessment years. Thus, the purchase from NJS has effectively been treated as bogus presumably only due to non-confirmation from NJS in spite of all the relevant details submitted by the appellant before the AO including copy of invoices, payment documents with bank statement copy and the led....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....It is pertinent to know that the appellants are engaged in the business of manufacturing Electrical DG Sets for which they are purchasing various raw material and spare parts from different persons. The appellant has purchased pump for C/N/K Series and B Series, EOT Crane, VCB Panel, NGR Panel, HT Transformer, Heat Oven, Air Compressor, Grinder, MLG/ARC Welding Machine, Hydraulic Pallet, Instlaterial-N material and various other items as per the invoices of NJS filed with PBs which are utilized by the appellant in the manufacturing and assembly of Electric DG sets, the end product of the appellant, and the appellant is not trading in these items, and therefore without bringing out any adverse material and adverse inference that equivalent a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....012/30.11.2016 pursuant to search on 10.02.2010 2004-05 163.03 1.47 Only addition u/s 14A 2005-06 205.94 0.56 Only addition u/s 14A 2006-07 294.82 2.18 Only addition u/s 14A 2007-08 431.55 2.31 Addition on account of 14A and disallowance u/s 80IB on account of scrap sale. 2008-09 465.15 1.18 Same as AY 2007-08 2009-10 473.97 1.56 Only addition u/s 14A 2010-11 581.77 2.05 Only addition u/s 14A It is observed that the appellant have been regularly purchasing material from NJS in the preceding years, payments have been made to banking channels and even the outstanding payment of preceding year was paid in the succeeding year, and since AY 2004-05 till ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edings, and therefore, matter should be restored back to the Assessing Officer to examine the veracity of the purchases from the said party because Assessing Officer did not get any opportunity at the appellate stage. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant findings given in the impugned orders. In so far as the validity of addition of Rs. 1,83,96,122/- is concerned, on the ground that no incriminating material has been found during the course of search and therefore, same is beyond the scope of assessment u/s.153A, we find that though the said ground was raised before the Ld. CIT(A). However it was not pressed, although, Ld. CIT (A) has deleted the addition on merits. Even though the respondent assessee has not ....