9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1970X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of ld. CIT (A), the same is hereby affirmed. The grounds of the revenue are rejected. Disallowance of bogus payment of commission - HELD THAT:- As perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Both the parties have advanced the similar arguments as made for the assessment year 1998-99. We have adjudicated the identical grounds in the appeal of the revenue - Since there is no change in the facts and circumstances for the assessment year under consideration, we affirm the order of ld. CIT (Appeals) who had rightly deleted the additions by following the decisions of the Tribunal in the assessee s own case for the A.Y. 1999-2000. The grounds of the revenue are rejected. Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - HELD THAT:- We do not find any reason to interfere into the order of ld. CIT (A) in respect of this ground, the same is hereby upheld, as the ld. Counsel for the assessee could not point out any illegality into the re-opening of assessment by furnishing any contrary material on record. The ground of the assessee is rejected. - ITA No. 716 & 717/JP/2016, C.O. No. 31 & 32/JP/2016 ( Arising out of ITA No. 716 & 717/JP/2016 ) - - - Date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before ld. CIT (A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Now, the revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Ground No. 1 of the revenue relates to deleting the addition made by the AO on account of inflation of purchases for ₹ 79,82,382/-. 3.1. The ld. D/R supported the order of the AO and submitted that the ld. CIT (A) was not justified in deleting the addition. 3.2. On the contrary, the ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written brief. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee made purchases from M/s. Agarwal Brothers, Delhi, M/s. R.K. Steel Trading Co., and M/s. Saurabh Steel Syndicate, Delhi during the year under consideration. Copies of various bills along with relevant details were filed before the AO. The payment was made to the said party through account payee cheques. The assessee has been regularly making purchases from the said party. He submitted that the purchases from the said parties were doubted by the department and additions were made while passing the orders for various assessment years between 1999-2000 to 2004-05. In all these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for A.Y. 2001-02. The ld. Counsel submitted that since purchases from all these parties have been considered as genuine by honourable ITAT, it is prayed that the submissions may kindly be accepted. The ld. Counsel submitted that it is important to mention that the facts of the present case are truly identical to those of the year 1999-2000 and 2001-02 which have been decided by Honourable CIT (A) and ITAT in favour of the appellant. The ld. Counsel, therefore prayed that the addition deleted by the ld. CIT (A) may please be confirmed. 3.3. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We find that the ld. CIT (A) while deleting the addition, has discussed the matter in detail and in para 6.5 to 6.13 has observed as under :- 6.5. I have perused the assessment order as well as remand report of the AO, submissions made including judicial citations given therein and cross reply of the appellant and find that an addition of ₹ 79,82,382/- has been made by the AO on account of unexplained/inflated purchases. AO has stated in the order that purchase bills for purchases of HR sheet and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot conclude the purchases to be bogus. 6.9. the appellant has submitted the details of Banks through which the payments have been made/encashed to/by these parties. The appellant has further requested the AO to issue the summons to these parties, if any further investigation from these parties is required. It is submitted that it did not have dealings with these parties since last 4-5 years and without purchases consumption of material, it was not feasible for the company to produce the desired quantity of cylinders. It is submitted that copies of bills of Agarwal Bros. impounded with AO may kindly be seen and it would be found that each bill is supported with stores receipt cum Inspection report. Each bill has the stamp of gate entry with proper gate entry number and stamp of stores department with proper serial number of entry in GRR. Each voucher has been supported with the signature of person who verified the inspection report, storing in-charge, signature of person who has prepared Stores Receipt Cum Inspection Report. Each bill contains sales tax number and truck number, by which the goods were dispatched. There is no infirmity of any kind in these bills. 6.10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se also as the payments were duly made through the bank account after receipt of bills and a copy of the ledger account showing all these details has been filed on record. Therefore, the contention of the appellant with regard to purchases of ₹ 30,85,511/- made from this party during the period under consideration, is found to be in order, in the absence of any material to the contrary available on record. 6.13. Thus, in view of the above discussion and in the absence of any material/evidence to the contrary available on record, I hold that there is no justification on the part of the AO to treat the purchases from these parties as inflated/not genuine. Accordingly, I delete the addition of ₹ 79,82,382/- made by the AO under this head. After going through the above observations of the ld. CIT (A), we find no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT (A), who following the decisions of the Tribunal, had deleted the addition. The order of ld. CIT (A) is upheld. The ground of the revenue is rejected. 4. Ground Nos. 2 3 of the revenue relate to deletion of addition of ₹ 60,70,056/- on account of suppression of sale of scrap and of ₹ 1,23,879/- on account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 123879 on account of commission on scrap sale has been made. 7.7. The appellant has stated that certain papers pertaining to AY 2004-05 2005-06 on account of sale of scrap were found and the income stated therein was surrendered and offered for taxation. However, no such papers or other evidence pertaining to receipt of scrap value outside the books of accounts were found and also no evidence has been placed on record by the AO before making the addition. The addition made on this account is not justified as complete production records relating to receipt of raw material, number of cylinders manufactured, generation of scrap, etc. Are under the supervision of Excise authorities. 7.8. It is further stated that AO was not justified in making an addition on this account after extrapolating the figures of scrap generation and AO has adopted the same rate of sale of scrap which has been used in AY 2004-05. Therefore, the addition made on this account may by deleted in the absence of any evidence. The appellant has placed reliance on a number of decisions of various courts to substantiate its arguments. 7.9. I have gone through the material available on record and f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion made by the AO on account of inflation of purchases for ₹ 1,67,07,740/-. 2. That the ld. CIT (A) has erred on the facts circumstances of the case in deleting the disallowance made by the AO on account of suppression of scrap sales for ₹ 1,12,58,527/-. 7. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Both the parties have advanced the similar arguments as made for the assessment year 1998-99. We have adjudicated the identical grounds in the appeal of the revenue in ITA No. 716/JP/2016 herein above. Since there is no change in the facts and circumstances for the assessment year under consideration, we affirm the order of ld. CIT (Appeals) who had rightly deleted the additions by following the decisions of the Tribunal in the assessee s own case for the A.Y. 1999-2000. The grounds of the revenue are rejected. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. 9. Now, we take up the cross objections No. 31 and 32/JP/2016 of the assessee. The assessee has challenged the order of the ld. CIT (A) in confirming the action of the AO in reopening of the assessment under sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a) Zohar Siraj Lokhandwala v. M.G. Kamat (1994) 210 ITR 956 (Bom) Assessee primarily must disclose particular portions of documents which are material. (f) Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC) (g) Indian Oil Corporation v. ITO (1986) 159 ITR 956 (SC) (h) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) (i) ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) 4.8. In the above quoted cases, mainly it was held that the assessee must disclose all primary facts fully and truly. The words omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the year, postulate a duty on every assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. What facts are material and necessary for assessment will differ from case to case. There can be no doubt that the duty of disclosing all the primary facts relevant to the decision or the question before the assessing authority, lies on the assessee. 4.9. Further in the case of A G Group Corporation vs. Harsh Prakash 353 ITR 158 Hon ble Gujarat High Court has upheld the issue of notice u/s 148 as there was alleged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
