9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stocks. If the sales were matched with purchases, in our view, no addition was called for. Therefore, we direct the AO to delete the impugned addition - Decided in favour of assessee. - Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member And Dr.B.R.R.Kumar, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National faceless Appeal Centre ( NFAC ), Delhi dated 06.01.2023 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned assessment order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the charge of interest u/s 234A, u/s 2348 and u/s 234C of the Act. 6. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend, or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. 3. The effective ground in this appeal is against the sustaining of addition of INR 15,08,401/- made by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) on account of unexplained cash deposits. 4. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee filed its return of income through e-mode on 30.10.2017, declaring total income of INR 1,94,910/-. The case was selected for compulsory scrutiny for the reasons large value of cash deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this case, the purchases have been accepted by lower authorities. Hence, there is no justification in making the addition since nothing adverse was found in the books of accounts. The purchases are duly verified moreover, no discrepancy was reported in the stocks 8. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. 9. We have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that Ld.CIT(A) in para 6.3.2 of the impugned order, has decided the issue by observing as under:- 6.3.2. I find that the appellant made a detailed discussion regarding the acceptance of sales and purchases by the AO of the petrol/ diesel interalia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en made to the said party which the AO had denied of having not been sold by the appellant in pursuance to the admission of the said party. The appellant relied mostly on the judicial decisions without discussing the vital factual aspect as to why the said party had denied of not purchasing any fuel from the appellant. I therefore do not find any substance in the submission and contention of the appellant in this regard. On the other hand, due to admission of the said party M/s. R Sai Transport Company that though its sister concern namely M/s. R Sai Logistic India Pvt. Ltd. made purchases during the demonetization period of Rs. 1,40,000/-, it had not purchase any fuel from the appellant, I find that the AO had correctly treated the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
