9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 540X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stries Ltd. during the year. No addition has been made for issue recorded in the reasons u/s 148(2) and therefore, no other addition can be made by the AO in the assessment so framed. On this score, we are inclined to hold that the assessment framed by the AO is invalid and cannot be sustained. Similarly we note that the AO has addition u/s 69C of the Act in respect of bogus purchases however the provisions of section 69C are applicable only to unexplained expenditure where in any financial year an assessee has incurred any expenditure and he offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure or part thereof, or the explanation, if any, offered by him is not, in the opinion of the AO, satisfactory, the amount covered by such expendi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 013. Thereafter the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act on the ground of bogus billing in the guise of purchases to the tune of Rs. 38,75,000/- from M/s Chakradhari Industries. During the year, the notice u/s 148 was issue don 31.03.2019 which was complied with by the assessee by filing return of income on 29.11.2019 returned in the same income as filed in the original return of income. Finally in para 3.1. on the last line the AO noted that the assessee has received Rs. 38,75,000/- during the FY 2011-12 from M/s Chakradhari Industries and finally addition was made u/s 69C of the Act on account of bogus expenditure to the tune of Rs. 47,03,192/- in the assessment framed u/s 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Act dated 27.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of re-opening the assessment wherein the AO noted that the assessee has received Rs. 38,75,000/- from shell entities. The Ld. A.R by referring to the assessment order stated that in the reasons recorded the AO stated that the assessee has received Rs. 38,75,000/- from M/s Chakradhari Industries whereas the assessee has not received any such sum from the said party. In fact the assessee has procured raw material from the said party amounting to Rs. 47,03,192/- against which the assessee has made a payment of Rs. 38,75,000/- during the year and remaining amount of Rs. 8,28,192/- was outstanding as on 31.03.2012. Finally the AO made addition on account of bogus purchases u/s 69C of the Act in the assessment framed. The Ld. A.R contended that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amount covered by such expenditure or part thereof, as the case may be, may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year . But in the present case, the Ld. A.R argued that the purchases were duly recorded in the books of account and the source of said purchases was also duly disclosed by the assessee in the books of accounts. Therefore the AO has grossly erred in invoking the provision of Section 69C of the Act. The order passed by AO is invalid in the eyes of law and may be quashed on this score as well. The Ld. A.R while arguing the fourth limb of his arguments ,submitted that the assessment order framed by the AO does not bear any DIN which is mandatory requirement under the Act. The Ld. A.R contended that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DR submitted that the correct picture will only come out after the investigation/examination of various evidences are carried out during assessment proceedings. Therefore to say that there was no addition by the AO of the issue which was subject matter of the reasons recorded is wrong. The ld DR submitted that the addition was made which was connected to the reasons recorded. Similarly was the position with regards to addition made u/s 69C as the assessee could no0t submit the satisfactory explanation. The ld DR therefore prayed that the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed. 7. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the assessee has advanced four alternate arguments claiming the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tex Property Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (supra) and in the case of Babita Devi Kajoria vs. ITO(supra). We also note that the Hon ble Calcutta High Court while passing the decision, has followed the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Jet Airways India Ltd. in 331 ITR 236 (Bom). 7.1. Similarly we note that the AO has addition u/s 69C of the Act in respect of bogus purchases however the provisions of section 69C are applicable only to unexplained expenditure where in any financial year an assessee has incurred any expenditure and he offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure or part thereof, or the explanation, if any, offered by him is not, in the opinion of the AO, satisfactory, the amount covered by such exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
