9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1043X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Officer had neither doubted the receipt of goods by the appellant nor the payment made for the same through banking channels. Since the assessee has shown the purchases and the quantification is based on the evidences/documents placed on record. CIT(A) was right in deleting the protective assessment as in both the years, the purchases cannot be held unexplained u/s 69C in light of the observations made hereinabove para while giving finding to A.Y. 2011-12 by us. This Court is of the opinion that no question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. - ITA 55/2022 - - - Dated:- 21-3-2022 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA Appellant Through Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the non-availability/tracability of the sellers cannot lead to the conclusion that impugned purchases had not been made at all. When the goods in question have been received at site, obviously, there would be a supplier. The onus on the appellant with reference to the purchases debited in P L a/c is to ensure that the payment in question is made for goods purchased and the same has been established as detailed above. The AO has neither doubted the receipt of goods by the appellant nor the payment made for the same through banking channels. The mere fact that the impugned sellers could not be available at the given addresses is not sufficient basis to disallow the impugned purchases as unexplained u/s 69C. It is also important to appreciate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere bogus despite knowing the fact that the purchases were reflected in the books of accounts for A.Y. 2012-13. The Assessee established before the Assessing Officer that the purchases were genuine and the Assessing Officer has also accepted the same, therefore, Section 69C will not be applicable in the present case for making such additions. Hence, the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition. Thus, appeal filed by Revenue for A.Y. 2011-12 is dismissed. 8. As regards Assessment Year 2012-13, since the assessee has shown the purchases and the quantification is based on the evidences/documents placed on record. The CIT(A) was right in deleting the protective assessment as in both the years, the purchases cannot be held unexplained u/s 69C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
