PCIT Vs Garg Acrylic Ltd. (Delhi High Court)
In the matter abovementioned Delhi HC dismissed appeal filed by revenue after observing that there is no allegation or finding that cash had been received back by the assessee in respect of the purchases reflected in its books of account.
Appeal is filed u/s 260A against the order of ITAT. The present case indicates the travails of the assessee being vexed with multiple assessment proceedings. Assessee filed its return for AY 2011-12 on 19.09.2011 at 31,41,11,875/-. CIT (A) as well as ITAT ruled in the favour of the assessee. Thereafter, AO found information that assessee had escaped assessment on account of certain purchases. AO issued the notice u/s 148 dt. 17.03.2017 and framed the assessment at ₹32,07,74,970/-. AO made an addition at the rate of 20 percent of the amount of the purchases, which according to the AO were made from the concerned vendors. Assessee filed appeal before CIT (A) who vide order dated 24.07.2018 restricting the disallowance to 16.26 percent of the purchases in question instead of 20 percent. Appeal filed before ITAT was allowed while cross-appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. AO, further, received certain information that asessee had paid certain amount during AY 2011-12 to multiple parties allegedly on account of bogus purchases of cotton. Hence, AO again issued notice u/s 148 on 28.03.2013. AO once again made an addition at the rate of 20 percent of the purchases made from parties quantified at ₹32,42,726/- u/s 147 r.w.s. 143 (3). Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) who not only affirmed the findings that the purchases made by the assessee were bogus but also enhanced the disallowance from 20 percent to the entire amount of the purchases of ₹1,62,13,633/- u/s 69C and held that the said suppliers were non-existent. Appeal before ITAT was allowed which was subjcet matter of the present appeal.
