9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent : Mr Rohit Jain with Mr Aniket D. Aggarwal, Advs. ORDER [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] 1. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. 2. Via this appeal, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 24.02.2020, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "Tribunal"]. 3. In the instant appeal, broadly, two issues have arisen for con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffirmed by the Tribunal. Insofar as the second issue is concerned, the CIT(A) has made, inter alia, the following observations: "...As against the above the AO did not come up with any contrary evidence, when the onus shifted on him, to demonstrate that the statements and the bills and vouchers produced by the appellant were bogus and not in consonance with the evidence unearthed by him like the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant during the appellant proceedings also. Therefore I am of the considered view that the entire cash expenses of the impugned amount were not free from stains as the appellant did not have supporting evidence of each and every item mentioned in the bills and vouchers. Such being the reason the addition of Rs. Six lacs Rs.6.00 lacs is sustained out of the above addition..." [Emphasis is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, the respondent/assessee had not deducted tax at source with regard to the payments made for purchasing packaging materials. 6. This view, as noticed above, has been accepted by the CIT(A), as according to him, there was no material available to show that the bills and vouchers produced before the AO were bogus. 7. Given these findings of fact, we are of the view that no substantial question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
