2018 (5) TMI 2106

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tc., filed its return of income for the A.Y 2013-14 on 29.9.2012 admitting a taxable income of Rs. 1,30,43,040. During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, the AO called for various information which was filed by the assessee. AO verified the same and observed that the information was received by his office from the Office of the DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai stating that a search and seizure operation was conducted u/s 132 of the I.T. Act in the case of Rajendra Jain Group which is a leading entry provider of Mumbai on 3.10.2013, and several incriminating documentary evidence was found and seized which conclusively proved that the associated companies/persons of the above group, through a web of concerns run and operated by them, are en....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....see is in second appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal: "1. The order of the Ld. CIT (A) is bad both in law and on facts to the extent it is prejudicial to the interest of the assessee. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal without even discussing the submissions made by the appellant and without considering faults of the case. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming additions made by the Assessing officer towards disallowance of the purchases. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the disallowance of the alleged bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 24,91,1501- without considering the facts of the case and the submission made by the assessee and without even referring the matter to the A.O for conducting....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e is not justified. CBDT circular via F.No.286/2/2003- IT (Inv.) 11. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the A.O proceeded to make addition towards disallowance of purchases even without affording the appellant of the opportunity to cross examine the witness suppliers on whose statements the A.O relied upon. 12. The CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that even if the action of A.O is considered to be correct, the A.O erred in disallowing entire purchases of Rs. 24,91,1501/- while only profit element of such purchases can be disallowed". 3. The learned Counsel for the assessee while reiterating the submissions made by it before the authorities below submitted that the assessee has not only recorded the purc....