9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 666X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te that there seems to be some confusion on the correct address of these two concerns and their proprietors and as a result, the notices issued by the AO u/s 133(6) were not complied with and even the Inspector could not locate their business premises. In the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate that the matter is remanded back to the file of the AO to examine the same afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. - the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA. No. 530/JP/2018 - - - Dated:- 7-8-2018 - SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM For The Assessee : Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.) For The Revenue : Smt. Punam Rai (DCIT) O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 133(6) of the Act. Thereafter, the AO deputed his Inspector to make field enquiry regarding the actual business activities of these two concerns. The Inspector vide his report dated 18.02.2016 reported that there exists no Plot No. 1087 in Chitrakoot, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur in the name of M/s Blue Bird Overseas and in respect of M/s Madhav Krishna Jewellers also, the Inspector reported that no firm is being run on the given address. Subsequently the assessee was confronted regarding non-traceability of these two parties and proposed addition of ₹ 19,30,214/-. The AO thereafter held that the amount outstanding in the name of these two concerns are not verified and the same was accordingly treated as non genuine and brought to tax in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Linkers, it was observed by the AO in the assessment order that as per the copy of account filed before it, that the appellant has shown outstanding credit balance of ₹ 2,43,144/-, whereas, as per the confirmation received from the said party, no amount was outstanding from the appellant. It may be mentioned that in its written submissions, it has been accepted by the appellant that the purchase of ₹ 2,43,144/- made by it from M/s Vardhman Exim Linkers was adjusted twice. This fact itself shows that the sundry creditors under consideration were not genuine. ( iv) Therefore, in view of the above discussion and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the AO was justified in making addition of &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prietor of M/s Madhav Krishna Jewellers is Shop No. 108, Yatim Khana Building, Opposite Municipal Office, Ahmednagar and address of the proprietor of M/s Blue Bird Overseas is D-189, Pavan Path, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali. There is no finding of AO that notice u/s 133(6) issued at this address is not served to them. The report of the Inspector states that in case of M/s Blue Bird Overseas, no Plot No. 1087 in Chitrakoot, Vaishali Nagar exists whereas the correct Plot No. is 10/87, Chitrakoot, Vaishali Nagar. In fact the report of the Inspector was confronted to A/R vide order sheet entry dt. 23.02.2016. In response to same, A/R of assessee vide letter dt. 23.02.2016 submitted that the assessee is not available and would be coming back on 15.03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ideration has come back to the assessee in cash, (e) the sales out of purchases have been accepted (f) the supplier has accounted for the purchases made by the assessee and paid taxes thereon. The SLP against this decision has been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 04.05.2018. The facts of the case of assessee are similar and therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities is uncalled for. Reliance was also placed in case of M/s Beauty Tax (earlier Florals India) vs. DCIT (in ITA No. 508/JP/2016 dated 10.04.2017) wherein on identical facts, addition was deleted. In view of the above, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by ld. CIT(A) be directed to be deleted. 5. The ld. D/R is heard who has vehemently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
