9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record except placing reliance on the assessment orders passed in AY 2008-09, which has since been reversed by the Tribunal. AO was not justified in rejecting the books of account and estimating the income. Accordingly, we confirm the action of the CIT(A) in all the three cases. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ii) - assessee submitted that the assessee have already made disallowance u/s 40(a)(ii) in their respective returned incomes and hence no further disallowance is called for - Held that:- We do not find any merit in the ground raised by the revenue in this regard. However, if the AO finds that any of the assessee did not make the said disallowance in the returned income, the AO is free to make the said disallowance after affording the opport ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urnover and the same methodology has been followed by the AO in the year under consideration also. 3. The ld. CIT(A) noticed that the addition made by AO in the assessment year 2008-09 was deleted by the ITAT and in effect, the returned income was restored. Hence the ld. CIT(A), by following the order of Tribunal, allowed the appeal filed by Assessees in all the three cases. Aggrieved revenue has filed these appeals before us. 4. The assessee has filed a copy of the order dated 19.10.2012 passed by the ITAT in the case of M/s Capetown Mercantile Co.Pvt.Ltd. V/s DCIT in ITA Nos.6037/Mum/2011 and 5957/Mum/2011, in which the Tribunal has deleted the addition by following the decision rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accounts i.e. ₹ 3,55,08,600/-. Though the Assessing Officer has treated this entire sale as accommodation entries but at the same time, grossly failed into bringing any cogent material evidence on record to show that the assessee was actually engaged in the business of providing accommodation bills/entries. Even reference of the statement of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain would not help AO because in his entire statement alongwith name of the concern to whom he has accepted of giving accommodation bills, there is no reference of the name of the assessee company. As nothing has been brought on record to hold that the assessee is engaged in providing accommodation bills, merely on the basis of the statement of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain, which has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) in all the three cases. 5. The revenue has also raised another ground relating to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessees have already made disallowance u/s 40(a)(ii) of the Act in their respective returned incomes and hence no further disallowance is called for. In view of the same, we do not find any merit in the ground raised by the revenue in this regard. However, if the AO finds that any of the assessees did not make the said disallowance in the returned income, the AO is free to make the said disallowance. after affording the opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 6. In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
