9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 876X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the nature of surmises and conjectures. We find the Coordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of M/s. Varun Beverages Ltd., New Delhi [ 2019 (9) TMI 1673 - ITAT DELHI] after relying on the decision of GP International Ltd. [ 2009 (12) TMI 33 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ] held that mere fact that certain parties did not respond to the enquiries made by the A.O. under section 133(6) would not by itself be sufficient to warrant addition of expenses in connection with which the enquiries were made under section 133(6). - Considering all we are of the view that A.O. was not justified in making the impugned addition. We, therefore, direct the A.O. to delete the addition made by him. Appeal of assessee allowed. - ITA.No.6599/Del./2016 - - - Dated:- 20-10-2022 - SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For Assessee : Shri Rajat Jain, C.A. And Shri Akashat Jain, C.A. For Revenue : Shri Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M. : This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-22, New Delhi, dated 01.12.2016 in Appeal No.17/14-15/CIT(A)-22/New Delhi, relati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two notices u/s 148 were issued in the name of appellant Company and M/s Crabtree India Limited, the amalgamating Company. b) That the notice u/s 148 issued in the name of Crabtree India Limited is in the name of a non-existent Company. 4. That the learned CIT (A) has erred in affirming the validity of assessment order without appreciating the fact that the notice issued u/s 148 is invalid, illegal, void- ab-initio, since conditions precedent for assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 has not been satisfied on the ground that: a) The proceedings have been initiated after lapse of four years and there is not even an allegation that the appellant Company has not disclosed full and true all material facts necessary for assessment. b) The AO has failed in its duties, having recorded the satisfaction that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and such escapement has occurred by reason of failure on the part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for assessment. c) The reopening of assessment by the AO is based on irrelevant , material/evidence. d) There was no reason to believe for any escapement of income. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A), who vide order dated 01.12.2016, upheld the order of A.O. 7. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us. 8. Before us, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that the purchases which have been disallowed by A.O. by treating it as bogus purchases were made by Crabtree India Ltd., which had got merged with the assessee company by virtue of Order passed by Hon ble Delhi High Court under section 391 and 394 of Companies Act, 1956 in Company Petition Nos.49-50 of 2006 dated 03.05.2006 with effect from 01.04.2005. In support of his contention that company being amalgamated with the assessee company, he pointed to the copy of Hon ble Delhi High Court order dated 03.05.2006 approving the Scheme of Amalgamation placed at pages 192 to 205 of the paper book. He, thereafter, submitted that these purchases were made by erstwhile Crabtree India Limited and in respect of the purchases, assessee company had filed the copy of bank statements of Crabtree India Limited wherein the payment made for the purchases were reflected. He submitted that assessee had also placed on record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... placed reliance upon the decision of Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT, Faridabad vs., GP International Ltd., [2010] 186 Taxman 229 (Punjab Haryana). He thereafter placed on record the copy of the working of gross profit and net profit ratio earned by the assessee during the year under consideration and from there he pointed that during the period under consideration the sales of the assessee was to the extent of Rs.1115,13,65,117/- and the gross profit declared by the assessee company is 28.37% and the net profit is 5.67%. He submitted that when the turnover of the assessee company is in excess of Rs.1000 crores, assessee would not be saving any significant amount by entering into bogus purchases/ transactions of Rs.40 lakhs odd. He, therefore, submitted that the addition made by the A.O. and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) is not based on evidence and, therefore, the same be deleted. 9. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. supported the orders of the lower authorities. 10. We have heard the Learned Representative of both the parties, orders of the authorities below and perused the material available on record. We find that in respect of the purchases made and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
