SMT. RUPALI SINHA,PASCHIM BURDHAMAN vs. ITO, WARD - 2(4), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

Brief facts of the case:- The assessee is an individual. She is the proprietor or two concerns. She was doing business in cement under the name and style of ‘M/s. Sinha Traders’ and business in hardware under the name and style of ‘M/s. Pandaveswar Hardware.

The issue that arises for consideration before me is whether the Assessing Officer was justified in disallowing the purchases of Rs.7,75,575/-, from out of the total purchases of Rs.28,68,747 made by M/s. Sinha Traders and further disallowance of Rs.9,49,404/- out of the total purchase of Rs.36,56,389/-, made by M/s. Pandaveswar Hardware. The assessee submits that the corresponding sales have been reflected by it in its accounts and that all necessary evidences were filed and hence the disallowance of the entire sales is bad in law. He also relies on the finding of the ld. CIT(A)- Durgapur, in the first round of appellate proceedings in Assessment Year: 2007-08 Smt. Rupali Sinha the appellate order passed in respect of Appeal No. 86/CIT(A)/DGP/2009-10, dt. 07/11/2012.

After hearing rival contentions, I find that the ld. CIT(A) in his order dt. 7/11/2012, in the first round of appellate proceedings at para 5 at page 2 of his order under the head ‘Ground No. C’ held as follows:-

“In this ground the appellant is disturbing the A.O.’s action in adding Rs.9,49,404.25 and Rs.7,75,875/- which the A.O. had added back on account of alleged purchase discrepancies found, respectively, in the appellant's proprietorship concerns of 'M/s. Pandaveswar Harware' and 'M/s. Sinha Traders'. The A.O's case is that the appellant could not prove that the amount disallowed on account of alleged purchase inflation had actually been purchased. In course of appeal proceedings, the appellant had filed bills of various small purchases made from several parties. It is observed that as per the bills submitted purchase had indeed been made. The A.O. in his order has dealt with this issue in a cryptic manner. He has simply mentioned that the appellant was not able to produce any evidence regarding these purchases. However, there is no justifiable reason to doubt the appellant’s claim here. I do not see why the appellant could not produce these bill s also if indeed she was asked to do so. However, to set at rest all controversies, it is directed that the A.O. will verify these bills while giving effect to this order and give the appellant consequential relief if her contention is seen to be correct. This ground of appeal is allowed subject to the directions given above.” 4.1. A perusal of the same demonstrates that the ld. CIT(A) in the first round has given a factual finding that the perusal of the bills submitted by the assessee, demonstrates that she had in fact made the purchases. He further observed that there is no justifiable reason to doubt the assessee’s claim. He restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification. I find that the ld. CIT(A) has no such power to set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer w.e.f 01/06/2001. Thus, the consequential order passed by the Assessing Officer, and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in the 2nd round of appellate proceedings which is the impugned order before us, is bad in law. In any event, on the face of the factual finding of the ld. CIT(A), in the first round of appellate proceedings, dt. 07/11/2012, the additions in this case had to be deleted. For all these reasons, we delete the disallowance of the claim y the assessee and allow the grounds raised in this appeal.