9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest of the claim. In our considered opinion there is no infirmity in the order of learned CIT-A. It is based upon correct appreciation of the facts and the evidences brought by the Assessing Officer on record. Hence we uphold the order of learned CIT-A. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 4237/Mum./2012 - - - Dated:- 1-6-2017 - Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member And Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member Assessee by : Shri. None Revenue by : Shri. Kailash Kanojiya ORDER Per : Shamim Yahya This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of Ld. CIT-A dated 19.06.2012 and pertains to assessment year 2006-07. 2. The grounds of appeal read as under: 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8,549 made on account of non-submission of reply to such notice may be deleted. 7. The learned CIT(A) ought to consider all evidences and materials regarding purchases and commissions produced by the appellant and therefore, additions of ₹ 1,04,76,814 made by him is arbitrary and without any basis and the same should be deleted. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 69C of the Act are not applicable and therefore, the Appellant prays that addition of ₹ 1,04,76,814 may be deleted. 9. The Appellant prays that: i) addition of ₹ 1,04,76,814 may be deleted; ii) an opportunity to be heard may be granted; iii) any other relief your honours may deem fit. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30,81,148/- Total 1,96,18,395/- The assessee was given sufficient time to get the confirmations. However, in respect of above mentioned parties, the assessee did not submit any confirmation till the fag-end of the assessment proceedings. With a view to examine the genuineness of above said transactions entered into with such parties, notices were issued u/s.133(6) of the I.T. Act to the above parties. The reply to notice was required to be provided to this office by 30/12/2009. However, only one reply from M/s. PAN India Network Infravest Pvt. Ltd. was received till date, where discrepancy has been found between the amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,40,000 No reply received 2,40,000 1,44,000 (on account of depreciation). 6. CMC Ltd. Purchase of computers 30,81,148 No reply received. 30,81,148 18,48,689(on account of depreciation). Proposed Addition 1,01,65,203/- The assessee was intimated about the same and was asked to substantiate that the transaction entered into with the above parties were genuine. The assessee was further asked to reconcile the discrepancy in the case of purchase of lotteries from M/s. PAN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e proved that the confirmations were not provided by above parties due to any specific reason, such as dispute, litigation, etc., The amount involved in the above said transactions entered into with the above parties is not a small amount. The assessee has no plausible reason for not substantiating the genuineness of the above mentioned transactions by way of confirmations. In view of the same, the claim of expenses and depreciation on the purchase of computers purchased from above-mentioned parties is not found to be genuine. Therefore, it is treated as expenditure not laid out or expended wholly exclusively for the purpose of business and accordingly, the same is disallowed u/s.37(1) of the I.T. Act. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s could not be served. Thus the transaction with these four parties has correctly been held to be not genuine and the disallowance of claim of expenses in these four parties amounting to ₹ 24,00,339/- ₹ 34,76,407/-, ₹ 33,27,803/-, ₹ 1,44,000/- respectively are confirmed. M/s PAN India Network Infravest Pvt. Ltd. The appellant has failed to furnish reconciliation of ₹ 11,28,265/- and has failed to furnish any evidence that the amount pertain to TDS certification, hence, addition of ₹ 11,28,265/- is confirmed. M/s CMC Ltd. The AO in the remand report has stated that the confirmation of the party signed on 2010 supported by copies of Tax invoice have been filed therefore the assessee s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
