9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 936X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied material. The learned departmental representative could not show us any evidence that in the hands of the parties where substantive additions have been made what is the fate of the said addition is. Unless, it is brought over knowledge the fate of substantive addition in the hands of another entity, the addition in the case of the assessee cannot be sustained. In view of this we set-aside this ground of appeal back to the file of the learned assessing officer to 1st ascertain the fate of addition made on substantive basis in the hands of another entity. If the addition is sustained there on substantive basis, the addition on protective basis in the hands of this assessee deserves to be deleted. If the addition is not sustained in the hands of that assessee on its own merits, even then the protective addition cannot be sustained in the hands of this assessee. If, a finding is arrived in the case of the assessee in whose case substantive addition is made holding that bogus purchases booked by this assessee and not to that party and therefore no addition can be made in the hands of that party then, in that case the addition is required to be tested in the hands of this party is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ption of the contention that they have filed the reply without verifying from the assessment records or referring the matter to AO is clear violation of rule 46A of the I.T. Act being additional evidence accepted in appellate proceedings. 5) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 15,76,20,249/- made by AO on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(4) of the Act. 6) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,10,76,317/-on account of disallowance of manufacturing expenses. 7) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts allowing assessee s plea for rejection of books of account u/s 145(3) of the IT act, 1961. 8) (a) The order of the CIT(Appeals) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts; (b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal. ITA. 5031/Del/2017 (Assessment year : 2009-10) : 1) The CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in law and on facts in allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in holding that completed assessment could not have been interfered by the AO by making the assessment u/s 153A of the Act does not stipulates any such conditionality. In the relied case of CIT Vs Kabul Chawla, ITA No. 707/2014 and others dated 28.08.2015 (2015) 61 taxman.com 412 (Delhi) departments SLP is pending in Supreme Court and decision is still awaited. 3) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 49,54,18,835/- made by AO on account of bogus purchase. 4) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting assessee contention that the Supplier of goods have submitted the reply/confirmation in respect to notice u/s 133(6) when the Assessing Officer specifically mentioned that no reply were filed in response to notice u/s 133(6), therefore, assumption of the contention that they have filed the reply without verifying from the assessment records or referring the matter to AO is clear violation of rule 46A of the I.T. Act being additional evidence accepted in appellate proceedings. 5) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 2,3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als) has erred in law and on the facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 88,35,756/-on account of disallowance of manufacturing expenses. 7) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts allowing assessee s plea for rejection of books of account u/s 145(3) of the IT act, 1961. 8) (a) The order of the CIT(Appeals) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts; (b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal. ITA. 5034/Del/2017 (Assessment year : 2012-13) : 1) The CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in law and on facts in allowing the appeal of the assessee without truly appreciating the factual matrix of the case. 2) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 42,43,41,000/- made by AO on account of bogus purchase. 3) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting assessee contention that the Supplier of goods have submitted the reply/confirmation in respect to notice u/s 133(6) when the Assessing Officer specifically mentioned that no reply were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 964,398,940/ against the returned income of ₹ 480 after claiming deduction u/s 80 IB of the income tax act. The assessment order u/s 153A read with Section 143 (3) of the income tax act 1961 was passed on 31st of 2016. 06 Against this the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT A. The learned CIT A also held that the entire assessment order has no reference whatsoever to any incriminating material unearthed by the income tax Department during the course of search and therefore in terms of the decision of the honourable jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT versus Kabul Chawla the complete assessment of the assessee could not have been interfered by the AO by making assessment u/s 153A and therefore making an addition without any incriminating material. He therefore held that the entire addition made to the income in the impugned assessment order requires to be deleted on this ground itself. On the merits, Firstly the learned CIT appeal The addition on account of bogus purchases with respect to A K Trading company of ₹ 498,496,874/ was deleted in view of the fact that entire purchases for the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court. 08 Despite notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee. From the order sheet we find that on earlier occasions i.e. 21/12/2020, 24/2/21 and 14th July 21 these matters were called for hearing but none appeared on behalf of the assessee. In view of this we proceed to decide the issue is on the merits of the case in absence of the assessee as per facts available on record. 09 Identical additions are made in the hence of the assessee for assessment year 2009 10 to 2012 13. 10 We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. Briefly the facts of the case shows that there was a search u/s 132 of the income tax act on 20/1/2014 at the business premises of the assessee and therefore the proceedings were taken up u/s 153A of the income tax act. We tabulate the date chart for all these assessment years as Under:- A Y Date of Filing of returns Date of Assessment u/s 143 (3) of the Act Date of search Status of assessment on the date of search 2008-09 26/09/2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 143 (3) of the income tax act on 31st of March 2016. Wherein he made the disallowance of bogus purchases of ₹ 424,341,000 as protective basis in the hence of the assessee. Further the disallowance of manufacturing expenses of ₹ 552,505 also made for the reason that AO was of the view that assessee is not carrying on any manufacturing activity and it was found to be not entitled for deduction u/s 80 IB of the income tax act and accordingly the manufacturing expenses of the above amount claimed by the assessee company were also disallowed. 13 On appeal before the learned CIT A, he deleted the total disallowance of bogus purchases for the reason that assessee has furnished the income tax returns, audited balance sheets, trading and profit and loss account, tax audit report of the parties from womb the purchases have been made for preceding year as well as succeeding assessment years. Income tax assessment orders were also placed on record. Therefore the learned CIT A held that the parties were genuine, supplies were recorded in the books of accounts, duly assessed to income tax and payments were also made through account paychecks. Further the proprietors of both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e addition cannot be sustained in the hands of this assessee. If, a finding is arrived in the case of the assessee in whose case substantive addition is made holding that bogus purchases booked by this assessee and not to that party and therefore no addition can be made in the hands of that party then, in that case the addition is required to be tested in the hands of this party is once again a fresh. In view of this we set-aside ground number 2 and 3 of the appeal of the learned assessing officer back to the learned assessing officer for deciding the issue afresh as per our above directions. Accordingly ground number 2 and 3 of the appeal of the learned AO are allowed for statistical purposes. 15 With respect to ground number 4 and 5 we hold that as assessee has been already allowed deduction u/s 80 IB of the income tax act in earlier years holding that it is engaged in the Manufacturing activities in this year it cannot be disturbed. Accordingly both these grounds of the appeal of the learned assessing officer are dismissed. 16 Accordingly appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2012 13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeals of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
