9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant/assessee to establish the transaction in issue was genuine.As noted by the authorities below; firstly, the appellant/assessee failed to produce the original agreement. Secondly, the amount which was forfeited towards security deposit was an odd amount. As noticed above the amount in issue is Rs. 6,95,80,595/-.Thirdly, the forfeiture notice was issued only on 22.02.2015, when, even according to the appellant/assessee, SAL had discovered that product was not of requisite quality, much earlier. Lastly, the write off of Rs. 1,59,36,508/- was carried out by SAL only in Financial Year (FY) 2014-15 [AY 2015-16], although, according to the appellant/revenue, the defect in the product and its usefulness was discovered way back in Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 8,55,17,103/- by disallowing what, according to it, was a genuine business loss. 4. What emerges from the record and is not in dispute is the following: (i) First, the appellant/assessee had entered into an agreement dated 23.01.2010 with a company which is presently known as Samtel Avionics Ltd. [in short, SAL ]. Under the said agreement, the appellant/assessee was required to supply specialized glass used in the avionics industry. (ii) Second, SAL conducted inspections in March-April 2010 which revealed defects in the product manufactured by the appellant/assessee. (iii) Third, SAL forfeited the security deposit which was made over by the appellant/assessee, on account of failure on its part to the supply the produ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant/assessee failed to produce the original agreement. 7.1. Secondly, the amount which was forfeited towards security deposit was an odd amount. As noticed above the amount in issue is Rs. 6,95,80,595/-. 7.2 Thirdly, the forfeiture notice was issued only on 22.02.2015, when, even according to the appellant/assessee, SAL had discovered that product was not of requisite quality, much earlier. 7.3. Lastly, the write off of Rs. 1,59,36,508/- was carried out by SAL only in Financial Year (FY) 2014-15 [AY 2015-16], although, according to the appellant/revenue, the defect in the product and its usefulness was discovered way back in March-April 2010. 8. We may also note that it is not in dispute that the appellant/assessee, at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
