TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 610
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,57,79,479/-made by the AO, ignoring the fact that a difference of Rs. 1,57,79,479/- on account of imports purchase was detected during the assessment proceedings on reconciliation of the data provided by the Customs Authority with the assessee's submission and found to be the purchases made out of the books. 2. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is a private limited company incorporated on 13.8.2010 under the provisions of the Companies Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal. 5. On the other hand, Ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well-reasoned order which does not need any interference on our part. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated the issues at length by observing as under:- "Vide Ground 4, the Appellant has challenged the action of the AO in making an addition of Rs. 1,57,79,479/- u/s 69C of the Act. In this regard the Appellant has made a detailed submission which have been reproduced at para 4 above. The Appellant has submitted that the AO has erred in making the impugned addition on the basis of dif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Modules 4,364,250 38.19 166670708 Sea Route Modules 1,242,000 38.19 47431980 Sea Route Modules 6,341,712 38.19 242190000 Sea Route Total 157,79,47,909 Further the assessee has also submitted that the Company has made purchases from Azure Power India Private limited, which further made these purchases from Amphenol Technology (Shenshen) Co Ltd and Solar FE Holdings Pte Ltd, and all the payment has been made through banking channels. On perusal of the CBEC data it is observed that the total assessable value of Imports was Rs. 159,37,27,388/- and the duty paid was Rs. 7,75,493/-. Though the duty paid is accepted to be capitalized as per the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....round for addition. Relevant part of the order is reproduced below for reference: 9. ...............................................................................................................On the verification of the detail it is found that there is difference between the invoice value in rupees and assessable value for customs. Assessable value for custom is on higher side in each of the invoices than the invoice value. The learned Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT (A) both has overlooked the fact that there can be difference between the invoice value and the assessable value of goods imported as per the Customs Act. Therefore, unless that Is reconciled it cannot be said that assessee has purchased goods out of bo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s 69C have been incurred by the Appellant. In absence of such crucial finding, the provisions of section 69C has wrongly been made applicable in the case of the Appellant. In this regard I place reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs Lubtec India Ltd (2009)311 ITR 175, wherein it has been held that provisions of section 69C can be invoked only when there is a finding that the expenditure have been actually incurred. Relevant part of the decision is reproduced below: 6. It is quite clear that what is postulated in section 69C of the Act is that first of all the assessee must have incurred that expenditure and thereafter, if the explanation offered by the assessee about the sourc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The said addition is, therefore, directed to be deleted. Ground is, thus. Allowed." 7. We note that during the year under consideration, the assessee had imported capital assets (i.e., cable harness and modules) amounting to Rs. 1,57,79,47,909/- from Azure Power India Private Limited for the purpose of construction of its solar power plant. Such imported goods have been capitalized both in the accounting books and tax books. Further, custom duty of Rs. 7,75,493/- was payable on import of cable harness and no custom duty was payable on import of modules. AO noticed the difference of assessable value of imports as per CBEC i.e. Rs. 159,37,27,388/- and the purchase value of Rs. 157,79,47,909/- reported by the assessee and made addition of....