9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce all the purchases made by the assessee are duly backed by the corresponding export and the sales figures have been accepted, then purchase cannot be discarded. Therefore, we taking note of the Tribunal’s decision for the preceding assessment year is inclined to allow the appeal of the assessee and direct the A.O. to delete the addition. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 208/Kol/2016 - - - Dated:- 1-5-2018 - Shri P. M. Jagtap, AM And Shri A. T. Varkey, JM For The Appellant : Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCA For The Respondent : Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT (DR) ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM This is appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) 13, Kolkata dated 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record including the paper book of the assessee comprising of pages 1 to 138 thereon. We find that at the time of survey, the survey team found certain bills for purchases from certain parties, wherein the quantity was duly reflected and the same has been taken in the stock register and there is absolutely no dispute with regard to the quantity. The assessee had duly explained that the rates would be entered in the said bills found for the period January to March 2010 after due negotiations with the said three suppliers after satisfactory verification of the quantity delivered and after carrying out the quality check of the same. Hence this goes to prove, that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee, Shri Milan Maity, Proprietor of National Enterprises confirmed having sold goods to the assessee and payments for the same were received by account payee cheques. It also stood established beyond doubt from the said cross examination that the said party had not done any fabrication work for the assessee as stated by the ld AO. We find that the ld AO for reasons best known to him did not chose to verify the other two parties viz Shivam Enterprises and Priyanka Enterprises in the remand proceedings. In these circumstances, the only inference that could be drawn is there is no adverse comment on the part of the ld AO with regard to purchases done from them. Hence there is absolutely no case for making any addition towards bogu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the assessee during Asst Year 2010-11. iii) The assessee further explained that he cannot be held responsible if the parties have not maintained any books of accounts or not in possession of any record in support of their sale. iv) The contention of the ld AO that the copies of the bills remained with the assessee is baseless, as it was no where stated by the parties in the course of their statement given on oath. However, there are certain bills impounded during the course of survey wherein rate / amount was not written. This has been already elaborated with proper reasons by the assessee. v) The assessee narrated that he being an exporter cannot accept anything which is not as per specification of the foreign buyer. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of the spirit of law. 7.4. We find that the ld CITA had recorded an incorrect finding that the ld AO in the remand proceedings had examined two out of the three parties which were the subject matter of addition. Factually the ld AO had verified / examined only one such party i.e National Enterprises (Proprietor Shri Milan Maity). In addition to this, he had examined Deep Enterprises which was not directed to be verified by the ld CITA . We also find that the ld CITA had given a categorical finding that there was no quantitative discrepancy that was found in the purchases recorded in the stock register. It is not in dispute that even on the date of survey, the alleged blank bills did contain the quantity duly received by the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parties representing 3 the aforesaid parties had confirmed that they were in fact supplying goods to the assessee. We note that the official records in respect of cross-examination of these individuals were sent to the Ld. CIT(A) vide letter 14.11.2014 by the A.O. for A.Y. 2010-11 (preceding year) during the appellate proceedings for that assessment year before ld CIT(A). We note that there is no whisper about the cross-examination conducted in respect of these 3 parties in the impugned assessment order passed by the A.O. We note that the Tribunal in the A.Y. 2010-11has already made a finding of fact that there was no quantitative discrepancy that was found in the purchases recorded in the stock register when the survey was conducted on 26. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
