TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 419
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../Del/2017 (AY 2010-11) are reproduced as under:- 1. That having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in assuming jurisdiction and issuing of notice u/s 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act, more so when the notice was issued in the name of non-existing entity. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, the assessment framed under section 153A(1) (b) of the Act, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the Ld. A.0. in making a disallowance of Rs. 1,45,000/- under the provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 4. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 1,45,000/- is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A)has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.0. in making disallowance of fre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs. 57,75,888/- is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in passing the impugned order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard. 6. That the appellant craves the leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal at any stage and all the grounds are without prejudice to each other. 4. The grounds raised in Assessee's Appeal No. 7423/Del/2017 (AY 2012- 13) are reproduced as under:- 1. That having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in assuming jurisdiction and issuing of notice u/s 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act, more so when the notice was issued in the name of non-existing entity. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, the assessment framed under section 153A(1)(b) of the Act, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That having regard to the facts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Act, hence, the provisions of section 14A are applicable in the instant case, therefore, he made the addition of Rs. 1,45,000/- and Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the same. 5.1 With regard to disallowance of Rs. 54,82,646/- relating to freight charges of Rs. 54,82,646/- is concerned, the AO on the basis of the documents seized and post search enquiries, observed that various companies had been floated by the assessee group to manipulate purchases and sales within the group companies without actual work being carried out by these companies. As per AO, these companies were only paper entities with no actual work being carried out. These companies are created by the SRS Group just to book sales/purchase and to inflate expenses. The assessee was selling on rate to rate basis within the group companies without making any profit and actually showing losses. The assessee did not produce any documents including bills and vouchers relating to claim of freight charges of Rs. 54,82,646/-. The claim of the assessee regarding these expenses is not justified as there is no evidence of actual expenses on this account, hence, he made the addition of Rs. 54,82,646/- in the hands of the assessee an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssible and reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of DCIT vs. UK Paints (Overseas) Ltd., CA No. 6634/2021, dated 25.4.2023 and PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., CA No. 6580/2021 dated 24.4.2023 and therefore, the said disallowance is beyond the jurisdiction of the impugned proceedings and deserves to be deleted and may be please be so held. It was further submitted that identical disallowance of freight charges was made in assessee's own case in AY 2008-09 and AY 2009- 10 and the Tribunal had deleted the said disallowance. 8.2 As regards ground no. 7 & 8 are concerned, Ld. AR submitted that a plain reading of the assessment order would show that the adhoc addition of Rs. 48,00,000/- by applying the rate of 8% of purchases has also been made in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search which is not permissible and reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of DCIT vs. UK Paints (Overseas) Ltd., CA No. 6634/2021, dated 25.4.2023 and PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., CA No. 6580/2021 dated 24.4.2023 and therefore, the said disallowance is beyond the jurisdic....