9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 927X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng part of the closing stock as on 31/03/2009. Assessee has claimed that these purchases were returned as it was not approved by the prospective buyer of goods from the assessee therefore the credit transactions in the books of account of the assessee were neutralized by the return of the goods purchased. The assessee has also corroborated this fact of rejection of these goods by the buyers and accordingly these purchases were returned to these 9 parties by producing the copies of sales as well as sales returns. The sales during the year has been reflected by the assessee as net of sales return and consequently the goods in question were shown as part of the closing stock. We do concur with the view of the CIT(A) on this issue that the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his appeal :- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 52,51,714/- made by the A.O. u/s. 68 of the Income-Tax Act, on account of unexplained investment/unexplained cash, without appreciating the fact that the assessee did not submit any documents/ evidences in support of his claim for the said purchases, nor the whereabouts of the purchase parties were traceable. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition stating that no benefit has accrued to the assessee by purchases from these nine parties. 3. Whether on the facts and in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,714/- remained unexplained without explaining the genuine source of investment against the same. Therefore the said amount is treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68. The assessee challenged the action of AO before CIT(A). The CIT(A) noted that the assessee filed stock statement and copies of ledger account of these 9 parties before the AO. The assessee has also filed copies of P L Account and Balance Sheet with Annex for Financial Year ended on 31/03/2009. After taking into account the fact that the purchase from these 9 parties are duly reflected in the closing stock as on 31/03/2009, the CIT(A) was of the view that no benefit has accrued to the assessee by taking purchases from these 9 parties in purchase account and subseq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not approved by the prospective buyer of goods from the assessee therefore the credit transactions in the books of account of the assessee were neutralized by the return of the goods purchased. The assessee has also corroborated this fact of rejection of these goods by the buyers and accordingly these purchases were returned to these 9 parties by producing the copies of sales as well as sales returns. The sales during the year has been reflected by the assessee as net of sales return and consequently the goods in question were shown as part of the closing stock. The CIT(A) has discussed all the facts in detail in para 3.5 to 3.9 of the impugned order. The concluding part of the order of CIT(A) in 3.8 to 3.9 is as under :- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground no.2 is allowed. 5. We do concur with the view of the CIT(A) on this issue that the rejected lot of purchases is part of closing stock before it was returned to these parties which does not involve any payments to these parties and therefore the creditors shown in the name cannot be treated as bogus liability. Accordingly we do not find any error or illegality on the order of CIT(A). 6. Ground No.3 is regarding the additional evidence considered by the CIT(A) without giving opportunity to the AO. We have heard the ld. DR as well as the ld. AR and carefully perused the impugned order. At the outset we note that though the assessee produced additional evidence in the shape of purchase bill, transport challan and ledger account s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... livery challans furnished by appellant bearing number 738 and 765 are dated 7 December 2008 and 24th December 2008, respectively same is the case for other parties named Simon fabrics, M/ s Ambica Fabs et cetera except in the case of one party named 'Herschel textile' in whose case appellant has provided transport done through transporter and bill is dated 26th of May 2009. In view of this fact that these transport challans are found pertaining to the period 2008 - 09 so are supporting purchases made from those parties as is evident from the date of bill and data of challans are same, however-they are no proof of return of goods as claimed by the appellant. In view of this, additional evidences being not transport challans for goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
