9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 640X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - I.T.A. No.3311/Mum/2015 - - - Dated:- 4-7-2016 - SHRI A.D.JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Respondent by Shri A Ramchandran O R D E R PER A D JAIN (JM) This is assessee's appeal for assessment year 2009-10 challenging the order of Id.CIT(A) dated 12.3.2015. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice. However, finding that the matter can be proceeded with in the absence of the assessee, I am doing so. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed a return of income on 26.09.2009, declaring a total income of ₹ 12,56,635/-. Information was received from the Investigation Wing, vide letter F.No.DGIT/(Inv)/Ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rchase entries to these three parties. Apropos the notices issued to M/s Seva Enterprises and M/s Jain Trading Corporations, no response was received, whereas the notice issued to M/s Motion Traders Pvt Ltd returned unserved. Therefore, the AO was of the opinion that the assessee had failed to substantiate the claim and, accordingly, he made an addition of ₹ 2,97,374/-as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and framed the assessment u/s 143 r.w.s.147 of the Act at an amount of ₹ 15,54,010/-.Aggrieved by the decision of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO by holding as under : ''3.3. I have considered the facts of the case and submission mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement of inventory as on 31.03.2009. Therefore, veracity of the claim is not verifiable. Moreover any payment for this purchase by account payee cheque is also not shown. Therefore, the addition made by the AO in this regard is hereby upheld. However, to avoid double taxation, if any, the assessee may undertake appropriate remedial measure in A. Y. 2010-11 Aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Bench. 4. I have heard the ld.DR and have perused the record available, including the orders of the authorities below. 5. I find from the orders of the authorities below that the AO has made the addition under section 69C of the Act on the basis of the report provided by the State Sales Department and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les Tax Department. The AO placed full reliance on the enquiries conducted by Sales Tax Department in respect of the parties, referred above. Accordingly, the AO took the view that the purchases to the tune of ₹ 38.69 lakhs have to be treated as unexplained expenditure. Accordingly, he assessed the same u/s 69C of the Act. 11. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition and hence the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 12. The ld. DR strongly placed reliance on the order of Assessing Officer. 13. On the other hand, the ld. AR submitted that the additions made in the case of some other assesses on identical reasons have been deleted by the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the following cases : a) Ramesh Kumar and Co V/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with his order on this issue. There also, no independent enquiry has been conducted by the Department. Since the issue raised in this appeal stands covered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
