9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... him. No other material was brought on record by him. Hence, the reasoning given by the AO does not justify the addition made by him. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting this addition. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of labour charges - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- We notice that the assessee has furnished the details of labour charges before the AO, but the assessing officer did not examine the same with the reasoning that the same was filed at the fag end of the assessment. Before Ld CIT(A) has submitted that the assessee had deducted tax at source against those payments. During the course of hearing, the Ld A.R carried us through the various details furnished before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... favour of assessee. - ITA No. 4910/Mum/2013 - - - Dated:- 6-10-2015 - B. R. Baskaran, AM And Pawan singh, JM For the Appellant : Shri K Mohandas For the Respondent : Shri Nishit Gandhi ORDER Per B R Baskaran, AM The revenue has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 21.04.2013 passed by Ld CIT(A)-19, Mumbai and it relates to the assessment year 2006-07. 2. The revenue is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in deleting the following additions made by the AO. (a) Disallowance of 10% of purchases (b) Disallowance of 10% of labour charges (c) Addition of Sundry creditors balance. 3. We heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee is engaged in the business of export of sarees a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terprises Pvt Ltd (ITA No.5604 of 2010 dated 17.12.2012) to grant relief in respect of this addition. In the case of Nikunj Eximpt Enterprises P Ltd (supra), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that merely because the suppliers have not appeared before the AO or the CIT(A), one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the respondent assessee. In the instant case also, the AO has made the impugned addition only for the reason that the suppliers did not respond to the notices issued by him. No other material was brought on record by him. Hence, the reasoning given by the AO does not justify the addition made by him. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting this addition. 6. The next iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted before us that the assessee had provided the addresses of all the sundry creditors and the assessee could not furnish the confirmation letters only for want of time. Accordingly he contended that the assessing officer was not justified in drawing adverse inferences without finding fault with the account books of the assessee. We find merit in the said contentions. Admittedly, the assessee was not given sufficient time to furnish the confirmation letters. Even otherwise, it is stated that two of the three parties are having running accounts with the assessee. The third party has been fully paid in the succeeding year by way of cheques. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that the assessing officer was not justified in drawing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
