9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 591X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2, C.O. No. 52/Agra/2012 - - - Dated:- 19-7-2013 - Shri Bhavnesh Saini And Shri A. L. Gehlot,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri S. L. Maurya, Sr. D. R. For the Respondent : Shri Navin Gargh, Advocate. ORDER Per Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. The departmental appeal as well as cross objection by the assessee are directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Gwalior dated 09.03.2012 for the assessment year 2008-09. 2. We have heard the ld. representatives of both the parties, perused the findings of the authorities below and considered the material available on record. 3. The Revenue on ground No. 1 challenged the deletion of addition of Rs.76,84,864/- out of total addition of Rs.83,44,318/- made by the AO on account of bogus purchases/creditors. The assessee on ground No. 1 of the cross objection challenged upholding of addition on the same issue of Rs.6,59,464/- on account of unexplained transaction with M/s. Shiva Saries. The AO made addition of Rs.83,44,318/- on account of bogus purchases and creditors. According to the AO letters u/s. 133(6) have been sent to various parties on the address made available with the assessee. Out of total such letters, 32 have been rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of both the parties restricted the addition to Rs.6,59,454/- and deleted remaining addition. His findings in appellate order in para 2.3 to 2.5 are reproduced as under : "2.3 Appellant's submissions alongwith assessment order, remand report of the A.O. and rejoinder of the appellant have been considered carefully. Assessment records have also been perused. During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant has given a list containing names and addresses of 318 parties from whom goods have been purchased. Out of that A.O. has mentioned 32 parties in respect of whom letters issued u/s 133(6) seeking information in respect of transactions carried out by these parties with the appellant have been received unserved. On the basis of details given by the appellant during appeal proceedings, A.O. has now mentioned names of only 8 such parties where again the letters issued u/s 133(6) have been received back unserved from postal authorities. From perusal of record, it is seen that during the course of assessment as well as remand proceedings. A.O. has issued these letters u/s 133(6) (for these 8 parties) on the same address mentioned below and not at changed address as given by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile Market, Ring Road Surat Z-2160-61 1st Floor, Surat Textile Market, Surat (Gujrat) A-1070, Kohinoor Market, Ring Road Surat (Gujrat) Z-2160-61 1st Floor, Surat Textile Market, Surat (Gujrat) Left 8. Sonika Prints S-102, J.J.A.C. Market, Lower Ground, Ring Road, Surat S-12, Lower ground J.J.A.C. Market, Surat (Gujrat) No information Received from the ACIT, hence no Further address communicated. However, the Changed address is B-4261, Kohinoor Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat-2 S-102, Lower Ground, J.J.A.C. Market, Ring Road, Surat (Gujrat) Left 2.4. Thus, on perusal of above, no party is found to be bogus or fictitious as they have left their old business premises. The appellant has originally given address of parties based on purchase bills etc. The transactions have been carried out during calendar year 2008-09 whereas the enquiries are being conducted during the year 2012 i.e. after a gap of about three years again at old addresses. The appellant has given the details in form purchase bills, copy of accounts, bank statement etc. which has not been doubted by the A.O. himself as mentioned in the remand re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion has been filed in the paper book. 5. On consideration of the rival submissions in the light of findings of ld. CIT(A), we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting substantial addition and restricting the addition to Rs.6,59,454/-. The ld. CIT(A) discussed each and every party in respect of whom the AO took adverse inference. It was found that the AO has not issued the letters u/s. 133(6) on the correct address supplied by the assessee. Therefore, no fault could be found with the explanation of the assessee. The assessee has given complete details of the parties from whom the purchases have been made. Purchase bills are supported by bank statements which have not been doubted by the AO. The account books of the assessee are audited. Sales are accepted by the AO which have been accepted by the Sales Tax Department also in their assessment. Profit rate of assessee is better is compared to the earlier years. Therefore, there is no question of holding that the assessee made bogus purchases. All the purchases are recorded in the books of account. Therefore, findings of the AO have been correctly set aside by the ld. CIT(A). In respect of the addition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entioned parties. The appellant has been able to satisfactorily reconcile the discrepancies/difference found in the copy of accounts of these creditors vis- -vis his books of accounts except for an amount of Rs.2,52,865/- as per following details for which no satisfactory explanation has been given by the appellant even during appeal or remand proceedings explaining payments made to respective suppliers but not found recorded in his books of accounts: Sl.No. Name of the supplier Date of payment as per reconciliation statement Amount Rs. Page No.of paper book 1. Sonika Prinits 30.10.2007 13,000/- 139 2. Amarshakti Silk Mills 05.10.2007 21,951/- 183 3. Rituraj Silk Mills 10.06.2007 25,540/- 193 4. Sarika Fashion 03.03.2008 41,595/- 199 5. Manish Designer (P) Ltd 29.08.2007 39,700/- 372 6. Shweta Fashion 16.04.2007 20.04.2007 12,000/- 1,189/- 375 375 7. Sajan Silk Mills . 11.2007 11.2007 365/- 365/- 402 402 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
