9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and TT and just because books of accounts of ICS and TT was not produced, would not give the AO a reason to believe that the payments made to the two concerns were inflated. CIT(A) has rightly observed that assessee is only expected to produce its own books of accounts and records and not to ensure production of books of account of every party, who has supplied goods or rendered services to assessee. That would amount to impossible burden being placed on assessee. ITAT has accepted this finding and has made pertinent observation that findings of CIT(A) based on material on record has not been controverted by the Revenue by bringing any positive material on record. Amounts paid to parties who did not appear before the AO and the bills we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed payment made to M/s. Intercontinental Shipping ( ICS ) and M/s. Timmy's Transport ( TT ) amounting to Rs. 1,58,70,839/- and Rs. 97,85,849/- respectively. The AO also disallowed payment of Rs. 50,82,009/- made to one Blue Ocean Marketing Private Limited alleging that it was a case of bogus billing. The AO also disallowed a sum of Rs. 5,70,995/- alleging bogus bills taken by assessee from one M/s. Sai Om Labour. An assessment order dated 31st August 2008 came to be passed assessing total income at Rs. 4,53,74,768/-. Being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (A) [CIT(A)]. The CIT(A) by an order dated 8th March 2002 partly allowed the appeal of assessee by deleting the disallowance made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50,82,009/- on account of bogus bills taken by the assessee from M/s. Blue Ocean Marketing Pvt Ltd. without independently deciding on merits the facts that Blue Ocean Marketing did not exist and also the assessee failed to produce the party before the AO. d) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in dismissing the appeal of Revenue and thereby in allowing an amount of Rs. 5,70,995/- on account of bogus bills taken by the assessee from M/s. Sai Om Labour without independently deciding on merits the facts that Sai Om Labour did not exist and also the assessee failed to produce the party before the AO? 4. The AO as regards questions (a) and (b), had made the addition in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d) that the amounts paid to M/s. Blue Ocean Marketing Private Limited and Sai Om Labour, the AO had made the disallowance only on the grounds that those parties did not appear before the AO and the bills were not supported by delivery challans. CIT(A) deleted the addition on the basis that delivery challans and test certificates were infact available. It is also recorded that the employee and director of Blue Ocean Marketing Private Limited had confirmed the transactions and the actual supply of material. So also the case of M/s. Sai Om Labour, assessee was accepted to have proved that the engagement of the labour contractor was essential considering the nature of the business carried on by it. This finding of CIT(A) was also acceptable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
