TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 12
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and facts in confirming the following addition while passing the appellate order. a. Disallowances out of alleged bogus purchases Rs. 6,54,842/-. b. Disallowance of Unsecured Loan u/s. 68 Rs. 14,80,000/. c. Ad-hoc disallowance out of expenses Rs. 50,000/-. (2) He failed to appreciate the facts that no bogus purchases as alleged by him are made by the appellant firm. He made an addition on assumption and presumption without giving an opportunity of being heard. (3) He failed to appreciate the facts that these suppliers were neither identified as hawalasuppliers by sales tax authorities nor any specific findings were made that thesepurchases were not genuine. (4) He erred in making an addi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition made. Assessee was also asked to produce the Principal Officer of the purchase parties along with financials and transportation details. The Assessee did not produce anything. Therefore, the learned Assessing Officer held that as the parties are not available, the details are not produced, He was not satisfied with the correctness and completeness of the books of account. Therefore, he applied the profit ratio of 5.46% of the total purchase bogus purchase of Rs.1,19,76,278/-, with respect to five parties and made an addition of Rs.6,54,842/-. 04. It was found that assessee has obtained unsecured loan from Mr. Rohit Sawhney of Rs.14,80,000/- and from Moiz Hasan Ali Tapia of Rs.6 lacs. Assessee was asked to produce the details of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Nil because of the carry forward of losses. 07. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A). The learned CIT (A) confirmed the addition to the extent of 5.46% of the bogus purchases, under Section 68 of the Act of Rs.14,80,000/-. However, he deleted the disallowance of interest holding that both the advances are for the business purposes and restricted the disallowance out of expenditure of Rs.50,000/-. 08. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. The assessee has submitted the written submission as well as the paper book containing 158 pages. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that addition deserves to be deleted completely. 09. The learned Departmental Representative supported the order o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, the orders of the lower authorities are reversed and grounds no.1(a) and 2 and 3 of the appeal are allowed. 011. Coming to the addition of Rs.8,80,000/- under Section 68 of the Act in case of Mr. Rohit Sawhney and Rs. 6 lacs in case of Moiz Hasan Ali Tapia. The learned Assessing Officer has accepted out of the loan taken of Rs. 14,80,000/- from Mr. Rohit Sawhney a sum of Rs.6 lacs as properly explained but confirmed the addition of Rs.8,80,000/- for the reason that same was accepted from his wife. We find that sum of Rs. 14,80,000/- from Mr. Rohit Sawhney was received from two different bank accounts. These are accounts with Bank of Baroda and IDBI Bank. IDBI bank is the joint account of Mr. Rohit Sawhney with his wife. For sum of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s discharged initial onus cast upon it under Section 68 of the Act. The only reason for which the learned Assessing Officer made the addition is non production of income tax return of the lender. Same was produced before the appellate authority. Despite this, the appellate authority confirmed the addition refusing to accept the return of income. We find that this is unjustified. Accordingly, the addition under Section 68 of the Act of Rs.6 lacs is deleted. Accordingly, ground no.1 (b), 4 and 5 of the appeal are allowed. 013. With respect to adhoc disallowance of Rs.50,000/- upheld by the learned CIT (A) out of the total disallowance of Rs.1,03,889/- being 15% of the total expenditure of Rs.6,92,596/- made by the ld. AO, we find that asse....