9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal has restricted the addition to 2% of the cash purchases, we are of the view that in the interest of justice it will be fair and reasonable if the addition of 1% of the cash purchases is sustained - Decided partly in favor of Revenue - ITA No. 5739/Mum/2010 - - - Dated:- 20-6-2012 - SHRI DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL AND SHRI RAJENDRA JJ. Revenue by : Shri D.S. Sunder Singh O R D E R PER DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL, J.M. This appeal preferred by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 11-03-2010 passed by the ld. CIT (A) 1, Mumbai for the A.Y. 2005-06. 2. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, the ld. Counsel for the assessee vide letter dtd. 29-11-11 sought adjournment on the ground th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment proceeding, the A.O. noted that the assessee has made cash purchases of Rs. 7,01,02,050/- from the various parties located at Ludhiana. In the absence of complete address and in order to ascertain the genuineness of the purchases, the assessee was asked to explain the genuineness of the same. In response, the assessee submitted that the goods were supplied by the local parties who were located in Ludhiana and having house to house cottage industries. Their livelihood is depended upon sales of these goods on daily basis, hence the payments were made in cash less than Rs. 20,000/- against the delivery of goods by them on daily basis. It was further submitted that they are very small vendors and do not have bank account. It was further su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccordingly partly allowed the Revenue s appeal. He therefore submits that following the same, the addition made by the A.O. be restored. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions of the ld. D.R. and perused the material available on record. We find the facts are not in dispute inasmuch as it is also not in dispute that the A.O. has made the impugned addition following the addition made in the assessment for the A.Y. 2004-05 and the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the same on the ground that the addition made in A.Y. 2004-05 was deleted in the first appeal. However, the Tribunal on the appeal filed by the Revenue while holding that since the purchase rate of raw cloth purchased is not verifiable, some addition is called for, restricted the ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find the facts are not in dispute inasmuch as it is also not in dispute that the assessee has deposited the entire amount of PF and ESIC much before the due date of filing of return. The issue relating to retrospective operation of omission of second proviso to section 43B was considered by the Hon ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306/185 Taxman 416 wherein it was held that it is curative in nature and would apply retrospectively, with effect from 1-4-1988. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s AIMIL Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) has held that if the employee s share of contribution is paid before the due date of filing of the return u/s 139(1), then no disallowance can be made. Respectfully following the ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
