Veetee Fine Foods Limited, Sonipat V. Addi. CIT Range-26, New Delhi

ITA 1907/DEL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0516 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 11-10-2022
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 26-11-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘H’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1907/DEL/2020 (A.Y 2012-13) Veetee Fine Foods Limited, 56-57, KM Stone, Veetee House, G. T. Karnal Road, Larsoli (101) Sonipat, Haryana – 131 039. PAN No. AAACP0658C (APPELLANT) Vs. Addl. CIT, Range : 26, New Delhi. (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR US, JM 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as CIT (Appeals)] dated 15.09.2020. Appellant by Shri Lalit Mohan, C. A.; & Ms. Monika Aggarwal, Adv.; Respondent by Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT; Date of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement 18.10.2022 2 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the CIT (A) has erred in law in sustaining the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and completion of assessment u/s 147/144 of the Act vide order dated 12.12.2019 by the learned Assessing Officer, which is without jurisdiction and hence deserved to be quashed as such. 2. That the CIT (A) has erred in law in confirming and sustaining addition made by the learned Assessing Officer of Rs.2,29,328/- on account of bogus purchases despite all evidences sustaining genuineness of purchase duly furnished during assessment proceedings and once again during appellate proceedings, where also the payment made through proper banking channel and therefore addition of Rs,2,29,328/- is bad in law and may please be deleted. 3. Any other ground or grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that Assessee filed return of income declaring loss of Rs. 40,90,70,911/-. The assessment order came to be passed under section 143(3) on 27.01.2017 at loss of Rs. 17,91,70,330/- after disallowance of Rs. 22,99,00,581/-. The assessment proceeding was reopened under section 147 by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. During assessment proceedings the assessee has produced documents to substantiate his claim. Ld. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax has disallowed sum of Rs. 2,29,328/- on the ground that said expenditure represents bogus purchase. As against the said addition, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on the ground that M/s. Hari Trading (Prop. Pardeep) is a dummy entity created by Shri Hitesh Jain and accordingly confirmed the addition of Rs. 2,29,328/- made by the AO. 3 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 15.09.2020 the assessee has preferred the present appeal on the grounds mentioned above. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has produced all the evidences substantiating the genuineness of the purchase during the assessment proceedings and once again during appellate proceedings the payment of Rs. 2,29,328/- has been made through banking channel, therefore the lower authorities have committed an error in making the addition. Per contra the Ld. DR has relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard the parties, perused the material on record and gave our thoughtful consideration. Ld. Counsel for the Assessee has drawn our attention to page 21 of the paper book wherein an amount of Rs. 2,29,328/- has been received from Shree Trading Company. Since the said amount has came through proper banking channel and in the absence of any material contrary on record and considering the quantum of the amount, we incline to delete the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly we allow the Assessee’s grounds of the assessee. 6. In the result appeal of the assesses is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on : 18.10.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (B. R. R. KUMAR) (YOGESH KUMAR US) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 18/10/2022 Veena/R.N, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 4