9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ormation from the sales tax department that some of the dealers were providing accommodation bills without actually supplying the materials. The AO noticed that the assessee has purchased materials to the tune of Rs. 39,61,591/- from the parties so identified by the Sales tax department. The AO disallowed the entire amount of purchases and added the same to the income of the assessee u/s 69C of the Act. The Ld CIT(A) restricted the addition to 8% of the above said amount and hence the revenue has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. I notice that the Ld CIT(A) has granted partial relief to the assessee with the following observations:- 4.3 I have carefully gone through the assessment order as well as the details filed by the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disallowed part of purchases without at the same time questioning the sales figure of the assessee. The AO has not brought any material on record to show that there is suppression of sales also by the appellant. Further, the AO has not rebutted the arguments of the appellant that the payments have been made through banking channels. The fact remains that the appellant has taken care to make his purchases through banking channel and since the banks are required to follow KYC norms the identity of the supplier cannot be doubted. As far as the issue of producing the supplier before the AO is concerned, the assessee cannot be reasonably expected to force the supplier to reply to the AO or to appear before the AO. 4.5 In a judgment given by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded to the income of the appellant. It is seen from record that on similar facts & issue, my Id. Predecessor had decided the case of the appellant for the immediately preceding A.Y. 2009-10 wherein she had taken 8% of the disputed purchases as fair profit element which is required to be added. The total amount which is being treated as bogus by the AO is Rs 39,61,591/-. Thus 8% of Rs. 39,61,591/- which is Rs. 3,16,928/- is taken as profit of the appellant on purchases that are not fully and properly explained. Addition of Rs 3,16,928/- is accordingly confirmed out of an addition of Rs. 39,61,591/- and the balance is deleted. Grounds of appeal Nos.1 & 3 is therefore partly allowed. 4. The Ld D.R strongly defended the order passed by the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
