9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 514X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AM, AND FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. For the Appellant : Ms. Sushma Nagaraj a/w Ms. Kinjal Patel, Ms. Shreya Singhi and Ms. Sakshi Kapadia For the Respondent : Mr. Vipul Joshi a/w Ms. Simoni Chouhan P.C. 1. Appeal impugns an order dated 17th February 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) by which the ITAT deleted the addition made by CIT(A) and allowed the Appeal filed by the Assessee. 2. Assessee was engaged in the business of importing oil in bulk, packing the same in different packs in its premises and selling the same. Assessee had filed its return of income on 24th September 2010 for Assessment Year 2010-2011 declaring total income of Rs. 7,14,506/-. Assessee s case was selected for scrutiny ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ical finding that there was no discrepancy in the consumption pattern of the packaging material and that the packaging material was used by assessee through out the year. But by deleting the addition made, CIT (A) strangely stated that a part of the purchase of packaging material have to be disallowed and disallowed 7% of the purchases. Paragraph 53 and 54 of order of CIT(A) read as under: 53. Once the sales of the appellant firm, which cannot be made without the packaging materials, are not questioned by the AO and are accepted as genuine, then there is no question of any purchases made by the appellant being termed as bogus. The purchases of packaging materials have been made to effect the sales of about 144 crores by the appellant f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns to the extent of Rs. 32,71,140/- is upheld and the balance addition made is deleted. This will also take care of the excess wastage of packaging materials shown by the appellant firm during the period under consideration. 6. ITAT has therefore, come to a conclusion that there was no material whatsoever before CIT(A) as to why 7% on the total purchase of packing material from 8 parties should be disallowed. Even we find the decision of the CIT(A) rather strange because in paragraph 53 of the order concluded above, he says there is no question of any purchase made by the appellant being termed as bogus. 7. In the circumstances, in our view ITAT was correct to delete the addition of Rs. 32,71,140/- made by CIT(A). 8. Appeal dism ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
