TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 2065
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of material GSB/Bajri/Stone was not segregated and the rate of purchase of Rs. 235/- per ton was given, which is not acceptable in absence of segregation of type of material. 2. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.13,17,273/- made on account of disallowance of interest paid to bank u/s 36(1)(iii) as assessee had made loans/advances to person/parties who were close relatives to the directors/promoters of the assessee company, but no interest was charged in view of the Hon'ble High Court's judgment in the case of CIT v/s Abhishek Industries Ltd/ 2006/ 2861/ITR. 3. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.81,00,000/- and Rs. 2,10,131/- made on account of difference in sale & purchases with M/s N K B Infrastructure Ltd as assessee company has shown sales of Rs. 5,25,47,280/- to M/s N K B Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Whereas the audit report of concerned parties shown purchases of Rs. 6,06,47,280/-. The assessee had failed to reconcile the accounts and pointed out that this was a clerical mistake by the auditor. The assessee failed to produce any documentary evidence regarding the claim. Further, both the audit reports were made by the same Auditor and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the purchases. It was argued that the ledger copy of the Gupta Transport Company for the period of 01-04-2011 to 31- 032012 was duly furnished. The copy of account showing trade payable of Rs 24,63,860/- & Invoice related to M/s Gupta Transport Co. shows the nature of transactions. The ld. AR also relied on the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of AC1T, Circle 4(1), New Delhi. Vs. Luminous Hodings Pvt. Ltd., 1TA No.4850/Del /2011, wherein it was held that, since onus lay on the assessee has duly been discharged in this case by furnishing necessary material and evidence before the authorities below which is supported by all documentary evidence in the shape of ITR and balance sheets etc., the CIT(A) while considering all the aspects of the case is found to come to a just and appropriate conclusion to delete the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer. Neither any contrary material has been placed on record by the department nor any infirmity of law has been pointed out or noticed by this bench in the order of Ld. CIT (A). While the ld. AR vehemently argued that 11850 tonnes could not have been transported in a single day which requires approximate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eping in view, the fact that the Revenue has accepted these transactions and no interest was disallowed in the earlier years for the similar advances which have been outstanding, we hereby hold that no addition is warranted u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 9. Ground No. 3 pertains to addition on account of nonreconciliation of amounts as per the accounts. The AO held that as per the information available in the Audit Report regarding the payments made to related parties u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act reveals that the assessee company had shown sales amounting to Rs. 5,25,47,280- to M/s N.K.B. infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. during the year under scrutiny. A similar information was available in the Audit Report of the M/s N.K.B. infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. where purchases from the assessee company were shown at Rs. 6,06,47,280/-. The case of M/s NKB Infrastructure was under scrutiny with the DCIT, Circle, Rewari. This discrepancy was noticed when DCIT, Circle, Rewari sought the information from this office regarding sales and purchases made by the assessee company with M/s NKB Infrastructure Ltd. The AO held that the issue was discussed in details with the assessee but he failed to reconcile the accou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce, the relevant part is reproduced in toto. "Addition of Rs 81,00,000/- and Rs 2,10,131/- on Account of Difference in Sales and Purchases With M/s. N.K.B. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The A.O. erroneously made an addition of Rs 81,00,000/- and Rs 2,10,131/- on account of difference in sales and purchases with M/s. NKB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. This addition was totally based on surmises and conjectures. The A.O. restricted himself only with the Audit report of the appellant's sister concern styled as M/s. NKB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. It was wrongly mentioned in the impugned order that this issue was discussed in details with the assessee. The appellant was never confronted with the issues on the basis of which the additions were made. No opportunity of being heard was given which is against the natural justice. If the opportunity of being heard was given the appellant could have explain the facts in its right and legal perspective. It is respectfully stated that in the concerned year two sister concerns styled as M/s. NKB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant Co.) and M/s. P L & Sons Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. were assessed u/s. 143(3) of the Act by the Ld. DCIT, Circle, Rewari an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nfrastructure (P) Ltd. 6,51,47,280/- 5,25,47,280/- 1,26,00,000/- (As fictitious purchases). This incurred due to entries on was of 81.00 Lacs related to job work carried out by the appellant which was shown by the P & L Sons Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and 45.00 Lacs was a bank/contar entry. The later was mistake in the audit report due to a clerical error. 2. Purchase from M/s. NKB Infrastructure (P) Ltd. 50,19,356/- 48,09,225/- 2,10,131/-(As income from unexplained Investment). This was a typing mistake. (i) Discrepancy at Sr. No. 1:Rs.81,00,0000/- Difference in Sales with M/s. NKB Infrastructure (P) Ltd. It is humbly submitted that there is no difference in sales of Rs.81,00,000/- with M/s. NKB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. in the concerned year. Attention of your good self is invited towards the following details: Sr. No. Purchases as per the books of M/s. NKB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Sales as. per the books of M/s. PL & Sons Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Difference Closing Balance in Rs. 1. Rs 5,25,47,280.00 Rs 5,25,47,280.00 NIL 72,53,335.00 On perusal of the captioned table it would be seen that there ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....PL & Sons Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Difference Closing Balance 1. Rs 50,19,356.00 Rs 50,19,356.00 NIL Rs 72,53,335.00 On perusal of the captioned table it would be seen that there is no difference between the sales and purchases of the companies. In order to strengthen the contention of the assessee the copies of the confirmed purchase ledger from M/s. PL & Sons Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and the assessee co. are enclosed herewith as Annexure-20 & 21 for your good self's ready reference. It is further stated that in the transaction chart of M/s. PL & Sons Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., the auditor has wrongly mentioned the figures of the purchases as Rs. 48,09,225/- instead of the correct figure i.e. Rs 50,19,356/-. The above contention can be verified from the fact that on perusal of the transaction chart of M/s. PL & Sons Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. it would be seen that even the auditor himself mentioned the closing balance of Rs.72,53,335/- as Amount Receivable at year end. The relevant schedules of the audited balance sheet showing the closing balances of both companies are attached as Annexure: 22 & 23. The confirmed ledgers of both companies....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....produced by the assessee and if at all, the auditor has committed the mistake, then the assessee should have taken remedial action in time either by carrying out remedial measure as per companies Act or ICAI standards, but here this matter has come to knowledge only after examination of facts & details by the department. 2. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- made on account of disallowance of unverifiable expenses as the majority of bills were cash bills, in which some were found to be computer generated cash invoices, delivery challans were not attached with bills and some bills were not even signed. The assessee was show caused as to why a lumpsum disallowance estimated worth Rs. 10,00,000/- may not be made, the assessee did not file any reply. 3. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs, 44,500/- made by way o disallowance of the claim of assessee company u/s 80G, as on verification of supporting documents in support of its claim, these have been found in the name of Sh. N.K. Gupta and not in the name of assessee company. 4. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 27,000/- made on account of excess interest pai....