SHREEDHAR M SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 12(3),

आदेश / O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, JM:

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the adhoc addition @10% out of total purchases from suspicious Hawala purchases of Rs. 9,33,57,092/-

2. The Ld. CIT(A) not considered the facts that Department has considered the peak amount for addition in assessee’s case for A.Y. 2010-11.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the facts that highest peak of Hawala purchases was Rs. 29,37,311/- for the concerned year.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the facts that without purchases, how sales can be effected?

5. The Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the facts that the assessee is Resellers not a manufacturers. The assessee has proved that entire sales is export. Entire export sales was confirmed by various Government Authorities.”

“Next ground relates to disallowance of purchase by holding that the same as non-genuine in nature. Learned AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has taken certain details from sales tax department and found that some of the parties, from whom the assessee had purchased goods, have been alleged to be issuing bogus bills. Learned AR submitted that that the Assessing Officer has accordingly disallowed the purchases without considering various materials available with the assessee to prove the genuineness of the purchases. Learned AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer has taken a different view in A.Y. 2010-11 and accordingly added peak amount of payments made towards purchases instead of adding entire amount of purchases. Accordingly, learned AR submitted that the view taken by the Assessing Officer in A.Y. 2010-11 may also be applied to the year under consideration also.

6. On the contrary, learned Departmental Representative submitted that the Assessing Officer might have taken different view in A.Y. 2010-11 considering the facts prevailing in that year and hence said methodology cannot be applied blindly to the year under consideration.

7. Having heard rival submissions, we are of the view that this issue requires fresh examination at the end of the Assessing Officer for the following reasons:- a) The assessee claimed that he has maintained certain records which would show that the purchases were genuine and the said records have been examined by the Assessing Officer. b) The Assessing Officer has taken different view of the matter in A.Y. 2010-11 and according to the assessee facts are identical between that year and the year under consideration.

Accordingly, we set aside the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to examine the same afresh after considering the explanation and information that may be furnished by the assessee before him. The Assessing Officer may also take into consideration the assessment order passed by him for A.Y. 2010-11 in this regard.”