9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1095X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Grounds of appeal, but the substantive grievance is against the action of the CIT(Appeals) in confirming an addition of Rs. 4,19,356/- being estimated profit on unexplained purchases. 3. In brief, the relevant facts are that the appellant is a partnership firm, which is engaged in the business of export of consumer clothing. The return of income for assessment year 2009-10 was filed by the assessee declaring a total income of Rs. 3,49,320/-, which was subject to a scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, whereby the total income was assessed at Rs. 3,66,344/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 06/03/2014 reopening the assessment on the ground that certain income chargeable to ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the purchases in question were bogus. The assessee also referred to his bank statement to prove payments to such parties. The details of goods sold by the assessee was also furnished, which corresponded to the purchases effected from such four parties. The CIT(Appeals) has primarily affirmed the stand of the Assessing Officer based on the information stated to have been received from the Investigation Wing of the Department relating to the finding of the Maharashtra VAT Department. Additionally, the CIT(Appeals) also noticed that assessee could not prove the existence of the suppliers and, therefore, the circumstantial evidence also suggested that the entire purchases from the four parties was unverifiable. However, he restricted the addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2009-10) dated 5/11/2014; and (5) Shri Hiralal chunilal Jain vs. Income Ta x Officer in No.4547/Mum/2014 dated 01/01/2016. On this basis, the plea of the assessee is that the entire addition is liable to be deleted. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the authorities below by pointing out that the addition has been made on account of the enquiries conducted by the Sales Tax Department of the Government of Maharashtra and no effort has been made by the assessee to controvert such information. 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The entire discussion in the assessment order reveals that purchases from four parties namely Dhruv sales Corporation - Rs. 13,67,640/-; Subhlaxmi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oints raised by the assessee was with respect to an opportunity to cross examine the four parties, but we find that no such opportunity have been allowed. Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid precedents, which have been rendered under identical circumstances, in our view, the CIT(Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition to the extent of Rs. 4,19,356/- instead of deleting the entire addition of Rs. 9,68,937/- made by the Assessing Officer. We direct accordingly. 7. Since the assessee firm has succeeded on merits of the addition, the other ground raised by the assessee challenging the initiation of proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act is rendered academic and is not being adjudicated for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
