9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) which was passed on 17.2.2010 was received on 26.3.2010 . On 1.4.2010, the assessee filed rectification application u/s. 154 of the Act seeking deletion of addition on point No. 10 & 11 of Remand report as remand report was self explanatory and did not require any contention or dispute. The hearing took place on 3.5.2010 in respect of rectification application before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel further pointed out that the assessee filed reminders on 16.7.2010, 13.8.2010, 20.9.2010 and 24.3.2011. Inspite of repeated reminders, no response was received from the Ld. CIT(A). So much so that the assessee filed a grievance application to ombudsman on 27.4.2011 but wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to Rs. 19025/- without considering the fact of the remand report which state that the purchase differences noted during the scrutiny assessment proceedings stands reconciled." 6. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that for the year under consideration, the assessee filed return of income on 30.10.2006 declaring total income at Rs. 11,11,290. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and subsequently it was selected for scrutiny assessment and accordingly statutory notices were issued and served on the assessee. The assessee is running a business in the name and style of M/s. Zan Enterprises which is engaged in the business of trading and exporter of Mechanical, electrical, pharmaceutical and civil supplies etc. Durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chase in each case. 8. Aggrieved by the finding of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the copy of the Remand report submitted by the AO to the Ld. CIT(A). The Counsel pointed out that the two parties to which the CIT(A) has referred are M/s. Pam Pac Machines Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Ajas Components which has been discussed by the AO in his remand report at para 10 & 11. The Counsel concluded that in the remand proceedings, the AO has accepted the purchases and has also accepted the reconciliation of the difference as pointed out by the AO in the assessment proceedings. 9. The Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of lower authorities. 10. We have considere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 386 dt. 3.6.2005 of Rs. 17,11,536/- and invoice No. 949 dt. 30.10.05 of Rs. 2,83,882/-. The contentions of the AR has been verified and found correct. A quantitative tally of the materials purchased from M/s. Pam Pac Industries and the corresponding Export invoices have been done and the same tallies. Further, the materials brought through these purchase invoice has been exported and sold to M/s. Pharmacare FZE, U.A.E. and the sales receipts have been shown in the trading, profit and loss account. Also, from the bank statement, it is seen that Inward Remittance from M/s. Pharmacare FZE has been credited to the account of Zan Enterprises. Further, from the bank statement, it is seen that the assessee has made payment of Rs. 17,11,365/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and as per that account there appears to be no difference or anomaly. The assessee's account is duly tallied with the account statement of the party in the assessee's books. In view of the above, the purchase differences noted during the scrutiny assessment proceedings stands reconciled.
11. After considering the above finding of the AO in the remand report, we do not find any substance in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) as the AO himself has accepted the genuineness of the purchases alongwith reconciliation , Their remains no reason for the addition. Accordingly, the additions are deleted.
12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ground Nos. 2 & 3 taken together is allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
