TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 875
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 1,71,95,333/- in respect of the purchases made from 13 parties. (ii) That the above said addition has been confirmed despite the fact that nothing adverse came on record in the detailed independent enquiry made with the respective supplier by the AO. (iii) That the above said addition has been confirmed ignoring the explanation and evidences submitted by the assessee in support of its contention. 4. (i)On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 49,36, 160/- made by the AO in respect of the purchases made from the following parties:- a) Sh. Easwar Lal; b) Sh. MahendraDewangan & c) Sh. Mohan Rao Chouhan ii) That the abovesaid addition has been confirmed despite the fact that nothing adverse came on record in the detailed independent enquiry made with the respective supplier by the AO. (iii) That the abovesaid addition has been confirmed ignoring the explanation and evidences brought on record by the assessee. 5. That the abovesaid additions have been confirmed by the learned CIT(A) ignoring the contention of the appellant that the AO having accepted the sales made b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O made the addition of Rs. 9,02,200/- in the hands of the assessee. He further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed this addition because the AO has incorrectly picked up the figures of Rs. 2,45,290/- as against Rs. 7,02,030/- appearing in the books of the asessee. He draw our attention towards Assessee's Paper Book (APB) Pages 127 to 134 and stated that nothing is adverse against the assessee as pointed out by the AO. He further stated that regarding the difference of Rs. 4,45,460/- does not belong to the assessee which was completely ignored by the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) and wrongly made/confirmed the addition. He requested that keeping in view of the APB Pages 127-134, the addition in dispute may be deleted. 3.1 As regards disallowance of purchases from thirteen parties, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that disallowance of purchase from 13 parties amounting to Rs. 1,71,95,333/- and stated that the AO issued notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act to 13 parties. In response to the same, assessee submitted confirmations from them and also filed income tax returns of these parties. To support this argument, he draw our attention towards APB page no. 162 to 229. He further....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....company are audited as per law and nothing adverse had been pointed by the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) and the same is not rejected u/s. 145 of the Act, therefore, addition on account of bogus purchase cannot be made. In support of his contention, he cited the decision in the case of Manoj Sharma vs. ITO, Ward 39(5), New Delhi (2019) 103 taxmann.com 105 (Delhi Trib); CIT vs,. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd. ITA 5604/2010 dated 17.12.2012 of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT, Tax-7, New Delhi vs. M/s Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. 2019 (8) TMI 1072. 3.5 Lastly, Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested that in view of his arguments alongwith the support of the documentary evidences filed in the shape of paper book and the case laws relied therein, the additions in dispute may be deleted by accepting the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the revenue authorities. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the orders passed by the revenue authorities. Ground no. 1 is general, hence, no adjudication is required. As regards ground no. 2 is concerne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with return of income which assessee has attached at Paper Book page 162 to 229 which clearly shows that the certain parties have supplied the material to the assessee company and the purchases made by the assessee are genuine. Even otherwise, keeping in view of the documentary evidences filed by the assessee company before the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) and even before us, we are of the view that the AO has not doubted the sale made by the assessee in the absence of the same, disallowance on account of purchases cannot be made. Secondly, the AO has not rejected the books of account as required under section 145 of the I.T. Act, therefore, the addition on account of purchases cannot be made. As stated by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the proof of the documentary evidences at page no. 253 to 265, the assessee company was assessed u/s. 143(3) of the Act in the subsequent years and no such addition has been made by the AO in those years. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, we are of the view that the addition in dispute is not sustainable in the eyes of law and hence, we delete the addition in dispute made on account of purchases from the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 We note that PB 136-143 is the copy of profit and loss account and trading account of earlier years together with assessment orders u/s 143(3) in which G.P. at the rate of 3.52%,4.13%, 2.99%, 2.-9%,2.60%,2:21 %, 1.88% for Financial years 2007-08,2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 respectively has been accepted (PB 17). 6.12 Wit00ut prejudice to above, the assessee's sale was Rs. 6.21 Crores as is evident form profit and loss account enclosed at PB 13 and assessed income is at Rs. 3.54 Crores as is evident from the last page of the assessment order which would constitute 56% of the sale which is impossible and against all norms. 7. In view of above discussions, it is clear that the transactions were not bogus and therefore, the case laws relied upon by the Ld. OR are not applicable in this case. As far as case law relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) as well as relied by the Ld. OR during the hearing i.e. La Medica (supra), we note that Hon'ble High Court has specifically noted in this decision that this was not the case of the assessee at any stage prior to the Hon 'ble High Court whereas in this case, this was the plea taken by assessee before Ld. CI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the books are unexplained or outside books of account, is very difficult proposition to accept. Because, the quantitative details of stock, purchases, sales have not been discarded or any defect has been found, then purchases as debited in the books of accounts cannot be added u/s 69C. Here in this case, even balancing figure of the gross profit shown by the assessee has not disturbed. Even if it is to be accepted that the purchases made from the three parties were in the nature of accommodation entries, then it has to be seen, firstly, whether these purchases have been made outside books or does not matches with the quantitative tally; or secondly, whether such bills have been obtained merely to suppress the gross profit. Ostensibly, the first reason is lacking here in this case as discussed above; and in so far as the second reasoning is concerned, one has to examine, if purchases have been made through cheques, the source of which are from the books account and if later on, cash has been received in lieu of such cheque but no purchases have been made, then clearly there would be a difference in quantitative tally of purchases as well as in the stock an such a discrepancy has bee....