9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adhur Aggarwal ORDER Per P. M. Jagtap, AM: This appeal is preferred by the revenue against the order of ld. CIT(A)-38, dated 24.3.2011 whereby he deleted the addition of Rs.15,18,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of painting purchased by the assessee treating the same as unexplained/unproved purchases. 2. Assessee in the present case is a company engaged in the business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment against the said purchases of paintings was made by cheque which included VAT amount also. The documentary evidence was also produced by assessee to establish that the cheques so issued were duly encased. This explanation of the assessee, however, was not accepted by AO on the basis of appraisal report of the Investigation Wing and the amount of Rs.15,18,000/- was added by the AO to the total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant has submitted that it is a pharmaceutical equipments manufacturing company. It appears that the appellant company, though belongs to ACG Arts Group is not a trade in paintings. The appellant company has not debited the cost of purchase of the said painting, for a price of Rs.15,18,000/-, in its profit and loss account. It is reiterated that no deduction for the cost of painting has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same is hereby directed to be deleted." 4. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the revenue has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. As noted by the ld. CIT(A) in his impugned order, the assessee company during the year under consideration was not engaged in the business of trading in paintings and no deductio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
