9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed from books of accounts, confirmation and bank statement etc., providing opportunity of being heard for the assessee and without being prejudiced with the earlier assessment order and impugned order. Accordingly, sole ground of assessee is deemed to be allowed for statistical purposes. - I.T.A. No. 3588/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 14-11-2014 - Shri G. D. Agrawal And Shri Chandra Mohan Garg,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Ved Jain, Sh. V. Chourasiya For the Respondent : Shri Gunjan Prashad, CIT DR ORDER Per Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Member This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-I, New Delhi dated 1.5.2012 in Appeal No.99/11-12 for AY 2005-06. 2. In the beginning of the argumen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the assessee is an afterthought and the assessee inflated purchases to the extent of ₹ 66,01,449 and the same was disallowed. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) which was also dismissed by passing the impugned order. Now, the empty handed assessee is before this Tribunal with the main grounds as reproduced hereinabove. 5. We have heard arguments of both the sides and carefully perused the relevant material placed on record. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO wrongly observed that the assessee has inflated its amount of purchase as the assessee submitted reconciliation and rectification from Jindal Polyfilms Ltd. which was wrongly considered an afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indal Polyfilms Ltd. had been filed before the AO. Ld. DR further contended that the search operation in the case of assessee company had taken place on 28.8.2008; the claim of the assessee that the purchases overbooked stand rectified on 31.3.2009 was only an afterthought explanation to controvert the findings and outcome of the search proceedings. The DR further contended that the assessee has not offered any explanation for the inflation in the purchases of ₹ 2,44,106/-. 7. On careful consideration of above rival submissions, we observe that the main controversy surrounds the allegation of the AO that the assessee has inflated its purchases by the amount of impugned addition. The AO also held that the explanation offered by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... September 2014 as ₹ 55,72,112/-. This fact has not been properly considered and adjudicated by the authorities below. We are not in agreement with the observations of the CIT(A) that the assessee should have established through the bank statement that it has paid an amount of ₹ 2,76,94,515/- to M/s Jindal Polyfilms Ltd. as the assessee is claiming purchases of ₹ 2,66,65,078/-. We also note that without verification of relevant confirmation in a proper manner, it cannot be said and presumed that the assessee has not established this fact that the assessee made purchases of ₹ 2,66,65,078/- by supportive evidence and details including bank statement. The CIT(A) went on hyper technical approach while observing that sell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .Y. 2004-05 requires proper and detailed verification and examination at the end of AO and, therefore, the issue is restored to the file of AO with a direction that the AO shall examine and verify the amount of purchases of the assessee emerged from books of accounts, confirmation and bank statement etc., providing opportunity of being heard for the assessee and without being prejudiced with the earlier assessment order and impugned order. Accordingly, sole ground no. 6(i) is deemed to be allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee on ground no. 1 to 5 is partly dismissed and partly deemed to be allowed for statistical purposes on ground no. 6(i) of the assessee. Order pronounced in the open court o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
