9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise the following similar grounds:- "1. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.30,28,254/- in the AY 2003-04; Rs. 31,36,182/- in the AY 2004-05; `.31,92,613/- in the AY 2005- 06; Rs. 36,01,139/- in the AY 2006-07; Rs. 33,04,872/- in the AY 2007-08) & Rs. 37,72,800/- in the AY 2008-09 made on account of unexplained purchases u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in accepting the transaction made in cash by the assessee company regarding sale & purchase. 3. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,23,920/- in the AY 2003-04; Rs.1,27,671/- in the AY 2004-05;`.1,33,093/- in the AY 2005- 6; Rs. 2,80,240/- in the AY 2006-07; Rs. 1,45,928/- in the AY 2007-08 & Rs. 1,64,692/- in the AY 2008-09 made on account of disallowance of 50% of expenditure and depreciation. 4. (a) The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. (b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal." CO nos.31/Del/2011 to 36/Del/2011 "1. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jection." 2. At the outset, none appeared before us on behalf of the assessee nor submitted any request for adjournment. Considering the nature of the issue and findings of the ld. CIT(A), the Bench proceeded to dispose of these appeals after hearing the ld. DR. 3. Adverting first to ground nos.1 to3 in these appeals, facts, in brief, as per relevant orders for the lead AY 2003-04 are that a search u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') was conducted in the premises of shri B.K.Dhingra, C.A., Smt.Poonam Dhingra and M/s Madhusudan Buildcon Pvt.Ltd. on 20th October, 2008. During the course of search at their residential premises at F-6/5, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, certain documents belonging to the assessee were seized. Consequently, a notice u/s 153C of the Act read with sec. 153A of the Act, was issued to the assessee on 8th July, 2010 for the aforesaid six assessment years. In response, the assessee filed following returns declaring income as detailed hereunder:- Assessment year Date of filing Income [in Rs.] 2003-04 8.9.2010 1480 2004-05 8.9.2010 1700 2005-06 8.9.2010. 1150 2006-07 8.9.2010 1620 2007-08 8.9.2010 2860 2008-09 8.9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled by the AR as well as the facts of the case and the position of law. In my considered opinion I agree with the appellant that section 69C would apply only when there is some expenditure for which the assessee is not in a position to explain the source of the same. And in the present case it is an undisputed fact that purchases of Rs.30,28,254/- has been duly accounted for by the appellant in its books of accounts. And when the transaction has been duly accounted for in the books of accounts and more particularly when the books of accounts has not been rejected by the AO, no question of disallowance of purchases u/s 69C arises. The judgement in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Radhika Creation ITA No.692/2009 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case as all the purchase are accounted in the regular books, the source is obviously explained. The provisions of sec 69C are not applicable as there was no unaccounted expenditure. In view of the above the addition of Rs.30,28,254/- made by the AO on account of purchases u/s 69C is deleted." 4.1 Likewise, in respect of the addition made u/s 68 of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not stated any thing else specifically except placing reliance on the findings and observations in the assessment order. 36. I have considered the assessment order, written submissions, remand report and rejoinder to the remand report filed by the AR as well as the facts of the case and the position of law. Moreover I have also gone through the profit and loss account of the appellant company and from the same it is observed that the company has incurred an expenditure of Rs.2,47,840/- only. During the search proceedings no material has been found which justifies the disallowance of the expenses. Complete books of accounts were produced before the AO. He has not pointed out any defect in the correctness or completeness of the books of accounts. Moreover books of accounts are duly audited under the companies act. There is no negative observation in the auditors report. It is further observed that the assessment of the appellant company for the AY 2002-03 has already been completed wherein no disallowance of the expenses was made. The appellant has placed reliance on the various judgments wherein it has been held that following the rule of consistency on identical facts separate con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities were right in their conclusions in deleting the said addition, Hon'ble Court concluded. 6.2 In the instant case before us, indisputably, the purchases and sales are accounted for in the books of accounts. Thus, source of the expenditure incurred in purchases is obviously explained. In the light of view taken in the their aforesaid decision by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, especially when the Revenue did not place any material before us, controverting the aforesaid findings of facts recorded by the ld. CIT(A) so as to enable us to take a different view in the matter, we have no basis to interfere. In view thereof, ground nos.1 & 2 in the appeal are dismissed. 7. As regards disallowance of expenses in these six assessment years, the ld. CIT(A) found that in the assessment of the assessee for AY 2002-03, no disallowance of expenses was made while the AO ,in the years under consideration, did not point out any item of expenditure, warranting disallowance. In these circumstances, and in the absence of any basis , when the Revenue did not even identify any specific amount of expenditure ,which was not related to the business of the assessee, we are not inclined to inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
