DCIT CEN 8.2, MUMBAI vs. KARAMTARA ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

O R D E R Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :-

In the above captioned appeal, following grounds of appeal were raised by the Revenue for the A.Y. 2011-12 :- 1. a. The Ld AO. has erred in disallowing depreciation on paintings amounting to Rs. 10,16,460/- without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The same be considered and the additions be deleted. b. The Ld. AO has failed to consider the detailed submission filed by the assessee vide letter dated 12.10.2018 . The same be considered and the additions be deleted. c. The Ld. AO has failed to consider that the said expenses have been allowed in the past assessments. Making an addition now amounts to change of opinion which is bad in law and needs to be quashed.

2. a. The Learned AO. has erred in treating Rs.1,77,50,390/- as purchases from Hawala dealers by relying on the details found during the search proceedings and has erred in treating them as bogus purchases without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The same be considered and the additions be deleted. b. The learned A.O. has failed to consider that the assessee had proved the genuineness of the transaction by providing all invoices

2 Karamtara Engineering Private Limited with delivery challans, ledger accounts, GRN notes, stock register, bank payment details etc. vide its letter dated 20.12.2018. The methodology adopted while making purchases from above parties is same as with the other parties which the Ld. AO has failed to consider. The same be considered and the additions be deleted. c. Without prejudice to the above, The Learned A.O. has erred in adding the entire amount of Rs. 1,77,50,390/- as non-genuine purchases without appreciating that in assessee's own case, the Hon. ITAT has confirmed additions @ 5% of the alleged purchases only. The same be considered and the additions be restricted to 5% of the alleged purchases only.