9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1073X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uantitative tally of purchases of meat and exports and the same was reflected in the credit column of the bank account of the assessee. It is not a case of the Assessing Officer that payments against purchases have been made by the assessee out of books of accounts. The contention of the Ld. DR are also not tenable as the assessee filed the details of the parties from whom purchases were made and the same is mentioned in the Assessment Order itself. The CIT(A) has also given categorical finding that only 20% of the purchases where disallowed on account of cash payment which was duly reflected in the books of account of the assessee - there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. - ITA No. 3535/DEL/2016 - - - Dated:- 18-3-2020 - SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by : Sh. H. K. Chaudhary, CIT DR Respondent by : Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 04/03/2016 passed by CIT(A)-16, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- 1. Whethe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) has incorrectly deleted the addition relying upon past history of the assessee. The Ld. DR relied upon the following decisions: ❖ N. K. Proteins Ltd. Vs. CIT(A) (2017-TIOL-23-SC-IT) ❖ N. K. Proteins Ltd. Vs. CIT( 2016-TIOL-3166-H.C-AHM-IT) ❖ CIT(A) Vs. Arun Malhotra 47 taxmann.com 385 (Delhi) 2014 363 ITR 195 ❖ Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2015] 58 taxmann.com 44 (Gujrat) ❖ CIT(A) Vs. Medica [2001] 117 Taxman 628 (Delhi)/[2001] 250 ITR 575 (Delhi)/[2001] 168 CTR 314 (Delhi) ❖ Prem Castings (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT(A) [2017] 88 taxmann.com 189 (Allahabad) ❖ Prem Castings (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT2018-TIOL-274-S.C-IT ❖ Konark Structural Engineering (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2018] 90 taxmann.com 56 (Bombay) ❖ PCIT Vs.Birkam Singh [ ITA No. 55/2017] (Delhi) ❖ Sanjay Olicake Industries Vs. CIT(A) [ 2009] 316 ITR 274 (Gujrat) ❖ N. K. Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2016] 72 taxmann. Com 289 (Gujrat)/[2017] 292 CTR 354 (Gujarat) 6. As regards to Ground No. 1, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has not received any exempt income during the year under co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) the investment in purchase not expenditure, or (ii) the parties from whom the purchases are made are not genuine. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT (Appeals) observed that from the Assessment Order it appears that the Assessing Officer has mixed up two issues in one and his findings and his conclusions are not related. While making the disallowance, the Assessing Officer has laid much stress on the non-verification of parties from whom purchases have been made. Thereafter after following the Tribunal Mumbai Bench order in the case of Eagle Impex in ITA No. 5697/Mum/2010 dated 22nd February 2013, wherein the Tribunal, after considering the fact that when the sales/exports are accepted by the Assessing Officer and the assessee has disclosed the quantitative tally also, it means that the assessee must have made purchases also, for which there is corresponding sales and once the sales have been accepted by the Assessing Officer, then it would be farfetched to perceive that such a huge quantity of purchases has not been made, has deleted the purchases amounting to ₹ 79.13 crore. The Ld. AR submitted that before the Assessing Officer, the assessee has furnished from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Financial Year Financial Year Financial Year 2010-11 2009-10 2008-09 SALES 1,383,740,479 1,224,536,391 1,179,610,466 MAERIAL CONSUMED MAN.EXPENSE 1,090,707,448 975,507,733 936,314,879 INCREASE/DECREASE CLSOING STOCK 70,389,451 49,230,130 48,350,244 GROSS PROFIT 363, 422,482 298,258,788 291,645,831 GROSS PROFIT RATIO 26.26 24.36 24.72 NET PROFIT RATIO TOTAL INCOME 1,465,526,876 1,292,599,263 1,242,332,423 NET PROFIT BEFORE TAX 36,215,286 24,754,140 30,439,352 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing that there is no exempt income received by the assessee during the year under consideration. This fact was not disputed by the Revenue. Therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted this disallowance in view of the Cheminvestment Ltd. 61 taxman.com 118 Delhi. Thus, Ground No. 1 of the Revenue s appeal is dismissed. As regards to Ground No. 2, it is pertinent to note that the sale of the assessee was never doubted by the Assessing Officer. As regards the purchase from the records as mentioned in the Assessment Order itself, was found that quantitative tally of purchases of meat and exports and the same was reflected in the credit column of the bank account of the assessee. It is not a case of the Assessing Officer that payments against purchases have been made by the assessee out of books of accounts. The contention of the Ld. DR are also not tenable as the assessee filed the details of the parties from whom purchases were made and the same is mentioned in the Assessment Order itself. The CIT(A) has also given categorical finding that only 20% of the purchases where disallowed on account of cash payment which was duly reflected in the books of account of the assessee. The case laws ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
