9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t corresponding purchases, the assessee could not have made the sales. Such being the facts, the case of the present assessee is distinguishable from the case laws relied on by the Ld. DR. Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly restricted the disallowance to the peak of purchases of 31,50,000/- taken as an alternate ground by the assessee. Thus we confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A). - Decided against revenue X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated, the facts are that the assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year (AY) 2011-12 on 30.09.2011 declaring total income of ₹ 5,07,610/-. The assessee is engaged in trading in computer system, assembled systems and peripherals etc. in the name and style of his proprietary concern M/s Infocom Technologies/S.N. Enterprises. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that as per the information received from the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra the assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills from the following two parties : Sl. No. Name of the purchase party Amount of purchase (Rs.) TIN 1. Kotson Impex Pvt. Ltd. 6,50,000/- 27110537510V 2. Urvin General Trading Co. Pvt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In the order dated 31.01.2018, the Ld. CIT(A) held as under : "4.7 Assessee in its submission before the AO vide letter dated 07.03.2014 at point (g) submitted that without prejudice to his arguments that his gross profit is 1.66% addition at GP of 9% may be made as additional income. However, the appellant has taken an alternate ground as under : 5. Without prejudice to the above, the assessee states that the peak purchases of ₹ 31,50,000/- can at the most be determined as unexplained purchase. It is noticed that the appellant though filed confirmations of the seller parties but failed to produce them for verification. Notices issued by the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court dated 17.01.2019 and Jansampark Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 231 Taxman384 (Delhi). Relying on the above decisions, the Ld. DR submits that the addition of ₹ 85,08,600/- by the AO be confirmed. 6. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the relevant materials on record. In the instant case the notices issued by the AO u/s 133(6) were returned un-served by the postal authorities with the remarks "not known". The assessee failed to produce the parties before the AO for examination. However, we find that though the assessee was not able to produce the above parties before the AO for examination, it is a fact on record that the AO has not doubted the sales. Thus it is logical that without corresponding purchases, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
