9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment Years („AYs‟) 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008- 09. 2. A search and seizure action under Section 132 of the Act was carried out in the M/s Swastik Pipes group on 28th August 2008. In this search operation, the premises of the Respondent Assessee M/s Northern Strips Ltd. were also searched. Subsequent to the notices issued to it under Section 153A (1) of the Act, the Assessee filed returns of income identical to the ones already filed for the AYs. 3. The information available with the intelligence wing preceding the search was that there were certain high volume cash transactions in the bank account of one Mr. Ravinder Yadav, maintained by him in the name of M/s Ravinder & Co. There were debits and the credits to the tune of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Draft, Manger's cheque etc." The Assessee also filed the details of the purchases made against C Form from Jindal Polymers Ltd. as well as the goods covered under VAT charged by it. The copies of the sales tax returns were also filed to substantiate that details of the sales made were duly furnished to the Sales Tax Department. 5. The AO, however, was of the view that the Assessee had been unable to furnish proof to establish the physical sales of the goods to the parties concerned as no details regarding the transportation, delivery challans were filed. It was observed that "crores of rupees from several parties were routed through the bank accounts of Shri Ravinder Yadav to reach the assessee and the other concerns of the family m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at as far as the Assessee is concerned it has in fact accounted all the receipts from the sales made to the different parties by producing all the relevant records. In fact the Revenue was unable to produce any material to counter the above facts and it was in those circumstances, the CIT (A) was persuaded to delete the addition. If in fact the genuineness of the sales have been proved by the Assessee and the amount received from such sales offered to tax then the addition made by the AO was in the facts and circumstances of the case not justified. 10. The Court is not persuaded to hold that there is any perversity in the above factual findings of the CIT (A) and the ITAT warranting interference. No substantial question of law arises. 11. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
