9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 598X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duction of parties to prove the genuineness of the transactions - Held that:- In view of PAN being furnished, we find that instead of question no evidence in support, the case in hand is only regarding factual verification of the payments made. Hence, issue remitted back to AO to decide the issue afresh - Decided in favor of assessee for statistical purposes. - ITA No.6583/Mum/2009, ITA No.900/Mum/2010 - - - Dated:- 11-4-2012 - P M Jagtap, S S Godara, JJ. For Appellants: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala S C Gupta For Respondent: Shri D S Sunder Singh ORDER Per: S S Godara: Both the appeals have been preferred by the assessee as well as by the Revenue against the impunged order dated 27-11-2009 passed by the ld. CIT(A). ITA No.6583/Mum/2010: 2. The assessee, while challenging the said impugned order, has raised the following grounds : "1.0 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of Rs.23,65,688/- u/s.37(1) of the Act in respect of purchase of materials made from under stated parties :- a) M/s. Vikrant Enterprises Rs.3,33,287/- b) M/s. Prakash Trading Co. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Otis Elevators Co. (I) Ltd. responded to the notices sent by the AO, the ld. AO vide letter dated 3-12-2008, asked the assessee to produce the parties by 11-12-2008. The assessee received this letter on 4-12-2008. In pursuance of the said letter, the assessee could not produce any of the abovesaid parties to prove that she had paid the amount as stated in her return. However, she duly produced all the necessary details of the said parties. But the ld. AO disbelieved the said expenditure as bogus by holding that neither the PAN number of any of the parties had been given by the assessee for the purpose of any cross verification nor the parties themselves were produced before him to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The ld. AO further came to the conclusion that the notices sent to the said parties also could not be served. Even the assessee did not furnish the new addresses of the said parties. Consequently, the ld. AO held that the confirmations of the said parties without any PAN details were bogus. Unreliable as the assessee could not produce the same despite taking ample opportunities. The ld. AO passed the said order on 26-12-2008. 3. Aggrieved by the said or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ld. lower authorities. The findings in this regard against the assessee are concurrent. Hence do not require any interference. Accordingly, by referring to the orders of the ld. AO as well as the ld. CIT(A), he prayed that the ground may be rejected. The findings of he ld. lower authorities be upheld. 4. We have heard both the Representatives. Also gone through the orders of the ld. AO as well as the ld. CIT(A). The paper book referred to by the ld. AR has also been duly perused. After considering the entire record, we are of the opinion that in the instant case, since the ld. AO had provided only a week's time to prove the genuineness of the transactions, so whatever materials could the assessee gather, were placed before the ld. AO. So far as the findings of the ld. lower authorities below that PAN numbers of the payees in question were not provided is against the record as the same are duly mentioned in pages stated above . Reference in this regard is made to page-11 containing PAN number of Bhanji Hiraji Patel (supra). Regarding M/s. Prakash Trading Co., PAN number is at page 43 of the paper book. So far as the other party i.e. M/s. Artex Enterprises is concerned, its PAN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee, then she cannot get the benefit of the said payment made to Shri Mehta. However, in appeal preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A), it has been held by the ld. CIT(A) that Shri Mehta was, in fact, brought by Shri Sachdeo in his place. The ld. CIT(A) further upheld the contention of the assessee that she had paid the amount to Shri Mehta for getting vacant possession of the property. As per the Agreement between the tenant of the assessee/developer, she also agreed to give him a flat costing Rs.70,86,956/- i.e. the cost of the flat included by the assessee as business expenditure. Accordingly, to this extent, the ld. CIT(A) has accepted the appeal. So, the said finding is being challenged by the department in the instant appeal. The ld. DR appearing for the department vehemently contended that it was Mr. Sachdeo who was the original tenant of the assessee. No agreement regarding tenancy existed ever between the assessee and Shri Mehta. He further submitted that tenancy can only be created by way of an Agreement. The same does not exist in the instant case. Therefore, he prayed that in the absence of any Agreement and any material on record to prove the relations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
