TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 760
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the fact that the entities from which purchases have shown to be made are bogus and nonexistent. 3. The CIT(A), being a fact finding authority, has further erred in facts and in law in accepting the contentions of the assessee without getting the facts verified regarding the existence of M/s Ganesh Traders and M/s Trade Link during the course of appellate proceedings as mandated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Jansampark Advertising. 4. The CIT(A), has further erred in facts and in law in accepting the contentions of the assessee without giving an opportunity to the AO to rebut the submission made by the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings. 5. (a) The order of the Ld CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. (b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal." I.T.A. No. 440/DEL/2016 (A.Y. 2012-13) "1. That the CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,17,95,500/- made by the AO on account o unexplained expenditure in complete disregard of the system o accounting a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of TMT Bars. It was reported with respect to M/s Ganesh Traders that the shop was closed having Sign Board of M/s Ganesh Traders. It was reported by the neighbours that the shop was closed for the last six months and was rarely visited. It was also highlighted that no other shop was open on that day in Tyagi Market. It was reported with respect to M/s Trade Link that the said firm did not operate from the impugned premises. It was also reported by Inspectors that Durga Transport Company who had transported the Bars was also not found at the given address. The issue regarding discovery of purchase bills in respect of TMT Bars was confronted to Director of the assessee Company and he submitted that the said purchases had been paid through banking channels and goods had been received as evidence by Dharam Kanta receipts as well as transport documents. The bills were lying with Shri Harmeet Singh Oberoi for the purposes of verification of weight and quality of the products. The Assessing Officer observed that the purchases had not been debited in the profit and loss account during the year under consideration as the said documents were seized at the time of search operation. The Assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case, the basis of addition made by the AO and the arguments of the AR, during the assessment as well as reassessment proceedings. It is seen that same addition on account of alleged unexplained purchases/expenditure u/s 69C has been made by the AO for AY 11-12 and AY 12-13. It has been the contention of the appellant that the amount of Rs. 7,17,95,500 had been recorded in the books of accounts as advance to the suppliers but the said receipt of goods had not been debited in the P&L a/c as purchases for the year under consideration. The reasons for the same have been submitted being on account of the said documents being subject matter of seizure during search operation and non-availability of the same at the relevant time. The AO for AY 12-13 has accepted the factual claim of the appellant to the effect that the purchases in question had been debited in the P&L a/c for AY 12-13 and not AY 11-12. It is quite obvious that the same amount cannot be a subject matter of debit in both the AYs and has to be considered for disallowance or allowance in respect of the year in which the same is debited to P&L a/c. Even if the goods in question had been paid for any AY 11-12, treated as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere would be a supplier. The onus on the appellant with reference to the purchases debited in P&L a/c is to ensure that the payment in question is made for goods purchased and the same has been established as detailed above. The AO has neither doubted the receipt of goods by the appellant nor the payment made for the same through banking channels. The mere fact that the impugned sellers could not be available at the given addresses is not sufficient basis to disallow the impugned purchases as unexplained u/s 69C. It is also important to appreciate here that the appellant group of cases had been subjected to search operation on 09.09.2010 i.e. the same financial year in which the impugned payments had been made for the said purchases. The search proceedings have not led to discovery of any evidence either in the form of incriminating documents of unaccounted assets to evidence the possibility of receipt of payments made for purchase in the form of cash. It only means that a casual presumption, especially in the present case' where search has taken place, cannot be made with regard to the impugned purchases being bogus as the goods in question have been received at the site and p....