9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime Global (P) Ltd. are also the parties related to the assessee and to decide the issue afresh relating to the disallowance under section 40A(2) after verifying this position. Accordingly, set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue and remit the matter back to the ld. CIT(Appeals) for deciding the same afresh after giving the assessee proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard.- Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - I.T.A. No. 109/KOL/ 2014 - - - Dated:- 11-9-2015 - Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member For The Assessee : Shri V.N. Purohit, FCA For The Department : Smt. Ranu Biswas, JCIT, Sr. D.R. ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and after considering the submissions made by the assessee as well as the material available on record, ld. CIT(Appeal s) confi rmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40A(2) for the following reasons given in paragraph 9.1 of his impugned order:- 9.1. I have carefully considered the assessment order passed by the AO and the submissions of the appellant along with the P L A/c, balance sheet, computation of income and the relevant details for the financial year under consideration, I find that the appellant purchased y ellow peas on 26.02.2009 and on 03.03.2009 from related and unrelated parties. I find that in annexure A to the assessment order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the assessee, all the four parties from whom the yellow peas purchases were made by the assessee during the year under consideration are related parties, and this position clearly evident from the relevant observation made by the Assessing Officer himself in the assessment order has not been disputed even by the ld. D.R. In his impugned order, the ld. CIT(Appeals), however, has assumed that two parties, namely M/s. Regal Nirman (P) Ltd. and M/s. Prime Global (P) Ltd. are unrelated part ies and it appears that on this wrong assumption, he has proceeded to confirm the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40A(2). In this regard, limited relief that has been sought by the ld. counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
