9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent ORDER V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member 1. This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-I, Mumbai, passed on 20/11/2008 for the assessment year 2005-06 wherein the revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not giving any specific finding regarding the purchases of Rs.3,70,46,085/- being genuine. So much so there is no finding on this addition made by the AO. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in erroneously arriving at the conclusion that as per the complete summarized reconciliation chart filed by the assessee total differences worked out at only Rs.1,78,157/-. There are no details in the order about the explanation of the figures totaling upto Rs.3,70,46,085/- and as to how they were accepted as genuine. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in accepting the purchases made by the assessee on the basis of confirmations filed before him without any verification of existence of the parties. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in giving the findings in respect of the purchases and expenses simply on the basis of TDS deducted by the appellant from some parties when TDS comes into play in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter in appeal before the CIT(A). 3. Before the CIT(A), the learned AR of the assessee strongly contended that the AO had made the said additions without appreciating the facts of the case in its proper perspective as per various details and evidence filed before him. The assessee filed a detailed reply before the CIT(A) vide his letter dated 29/04/2008, the contents of which were extracted by the CIT(A) in his order at pages 3 to 7. Thereafter, the CIT(A) forwarded the affidavits and account statements produced by the assessee before him to the AO for his comments/objections if any after its due verification as required under rule-46A of the IT Rules, as these fresh evidences produced during the appellate proceedings were not available before the AO during assessment proceedings. The AO submitted his remand report dated 18/09/08 stating therein that since full addresses and telephone numbers are not mentioned in the affidavits filed it is not possible for him to carry out further enquiries so as to ascertain the genuineness of the transactions. The AO had also stated that the lists which consist date, bill no. and amount are not sufficient material to prove correctness and genu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd bills and vouchers of the appellant and further could have verified the payments made against these purchases etc. from the bank account statements of the appellant. No such efforts are made by the AO, neither during the assessment proceedings nor during the remand proceedings. The affidavits and account confirmations filed by the appellant are not examined by the AO. The sales made against these purchases duly recorded in the books of accounts of the appellant are not doubted. The books of account are found to be audited by the tax auditors, wherein no such infirmities are noted in the maintenance of the books of account of the appellant. 2.4.9 Accordingly, in view of these facts of the case, as discussed above, the entire difference noted in respect sr.nos. 1,2 and 4 of para 2.4.7 above, amounting to Rs.1,02,530/- (i.e. Rs.95,717/- + Rs.1,900/-), is treated as unexplained expenditure, the source thereof is not explained, since the appellant has not accounted for these purchase/expenses, but the parties concerned have duly confirmed the same. Similarly, as per Sr.No. 5 and6 of para 2.4.7 above, an amount of Rs.82,639/- (i.e. 47,152/- + Rs.35,488/-), is found to be unexplain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e AO are mainly on account of non-submissions of confirmations by the parties against enquiry letters issued u/s 133(6) of the Act. The AO has noted that out of such 28 parties in which enquiry letters were issued, only 11 parties have responded and out of these 11 parties, he noticed a difference of Rs.61,38/- in case of two parties. Regarding the balance 17 parties, the AO noted that in as much as 10 parties enquiry letters were duly served but the parties have failed to respond to the same. The total amount of transactions entered in the books of account of assessee on account of these parties is for a sum of Rs.1,87,73,044/-. Regarding the balance 7 parties, the AO has noted that the enquiry letters issued were received back from the postal authorities unserved making remarks as unknown, left etc. and the total amount involved pertaining to these parties were found to be to the tune of Rs.1,84,58,210/-. As per the AO, the assessee failed to explain the same nor it could furnish the relevant confirmations of all the 17 parties as mentioned above. He, therefore, held that the assessee could not discharge its responsibility to the extent of not providing proper details as well as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
