9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 996X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any doubt on confirmation, she should have verified this confirmation from her counter part at Kolkata. Ld. A.O. had given sufficient power under the IT Law, which has not been used by her. In absence of any contrary evidence against the appellant, the addition cannot be confirmed. Addition on account of bogus purchases - Held that:- The search was relevant to A.Y. 2005-06, whatever evidences found during the course were relevant to A.Y. 2005-06 not 2006-07. The appellant had furnished the confirmation with PAN no. with full address of the purchase parties. On the basis of past history, no addition can be made without brining out any contrary evidence on record. If the A.O. has any doubt about the genuineness of the purchase, she should have inquire directly form the supplier or made any inquiry as per law. The ld. A.O. had not made out the case on the basis of evidence. The addition was made on the basis of evidence found in past, cannot be sustained X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red the contentions of Learned Counsel as well as gone through the records. On perusal of assessment order, it has been noticed that the Assessing Officer had made addition only on the basis of statements of two employees of the Appellant Company who were not looking after sales/marketing/goods returned/destroyed. It was also admitted by both these employees that no record of goods destroyed were maintained. The Assessing Officer was required to investigate further for disproving the claim of the Appellant was not done in the present case. Further, books were treated as authentic since these were not rejected u/s 145 before estimating the goods returned/damaged. It is also evident from the statements of both these employees that the statements were given only on the basis of memory without reference to any documentary evidence. Hence, their statements were not corroborated with documents/records before making any estimate. On the other hand, the Appellant had submitted before the Assessing Officer party-wise details of debit advice and claims of various parties. It was held by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT vs. Smt. Usha Tripathi (249 ITR 4) that the estimate of income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the year, goods expired was ₹ 7,94,441/- and goods replaced at ₹ 1,46,60,484/- which is 2.46%, is reasonable. Keeping in view the past history of the assessee, the ld. A.O. had not brought on record any evidence that the appellant had made sale outside the books. Even, no evidence during the course of search were found, which was relevant to A.Y. 2005-06. The Settlement Commission also accepted the assessee's disclosure of further any additional disclosure on this issue. Thus, we do not find any reason to intervene in the order of the CIT(A). 6. The second ground of appeal is against deleting the addition of ₹ 20,23,766/-. The A.O. observed that during the course of search vital material was seized demonstrating the assessee unlikely payment to M/s. Saffroys. During the year under consideration also, the assessee had passed a journal entry and paid ₹ 20,23,766/- to M/s. Saffroys as against their opening balance as on 01.04.2005. The ld. A.O. gave reasonable opportunity of being heard on this issue. The appellant claimed before the A.O. that this payment was genuine and also filed confirmation, but ld. A.O. does not satisfy with the confirmation as he foun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sis of material found and seized, it was traced out that the assessee company had debited bogus purchase to reduce profit thereby reduce tax liability. The appellant asked to file party wise details of purchase which were filed by the appellant which has been reproduced by the A.O. on page nos. 7 to 9 of the assessment order. The ld. A.O. further identified from the purchase details that 18 parties mentioned on page 10, were given bogus bill to the appellant in past, which has been admitted by the appellant before the Settlement Commission. The appellant filed the confirmation of the transaction to prove the genuineness before the A.O. but ld. A.O. did not satisfy with the confirmation filed by the appellant before her as various defects were found in the confirmation. On the basis of evidence found during the course of search and admission made by the appellant in settlement petition under this head, she made addition of ₹ 48,88,550/-. 11. Being aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee carried the matter before ld. CIT(A), who had allowed the appeal by observing as under: "5.1 I have carefully considered the contentions of Learned Counsel as well as gone through t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
