IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-2 NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2329/Del/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s Nelco Electricals Pvt. Ltd., VS. ITO, WARD-1 367, Sri Nagar, Hapur, Hapur C/o RK Garg, T-314, Ganga Plaza, Begum Bridge Road, Meerut (PAN: AABCN8127F) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by: Sh. RK Garg, Adv. Revenue by: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing on : 08/09/2016 Order Pronounced on : 04/10/2016 PER H.S. SIDHU, JM ORDER This appeal is filed by assessee against order dated 19.2.2015 passed by Ld. CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar relating to Assessment Year 2010-11 on following grounds:- 1. That under facts & circumstances of case, learned CIT (Appeals) has erred to hold burden lies on appellant has not been discharged. finding is arbitrary, unjust uncalled-for, illegal and against material placed on record. 2. That under facts & circumstances of case, learned CIT (Appeals) has erred to hold that purchases shown from outstanding creditors at Rs. 2 32,95,000/- was bogus purchases without going through documents filed and coming to conclusion without giving show cause notice. finding of bogus purchases is arbitrary, unjust, uncalled-for and against genuine purchases held by learned A.O. addition on account of outstanding liability against bogus purchases held, is therefore, arbitrary, unjust, uncalled-for and illegal. 3. That under facts & circumstances of case, learned CIT (Appeals) has erred to hold that A:O. has rightly treated liability as bogus, because alleged creditor did not exist. finding is arbitrary, unjust, uncalled-for and in any case illegal and based on surmises and conjectures. 4. That under acts & circumstances of case, learned CIT (Appeals) has erred to treat sum of Rs. 32,95,000/- bogus liability, vis vis bogus purchases. addition and finding is arbitrary, unjust, uncalled- for, illegal and based against material placed on record. 2. Facts narrated by revenue authorities are not disputed by both parties, hence, same are not repeated here for sake of convenience. 3. At time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of assessee has stated that Revenue authorities has not given sufficient opportunity to assessee for substantiating its claim before them. He requested that assessee is having all necessary evidence which can be produced before AO, if this Bench granted opportunity to assessee. He has filed Paper Book containing pages 1 to 51 in which he has attached copy of written submission dated 3 20.6.2014, as filed before Ld. CIT(A) Ghaziabad; confirmed copy of account of M/s Lal Trading Co., alongwith copy of all purchase bills and copy of account for AY 2011-12 till close of account, as filed before AO; confirmed copy of account of M/s Love Marketing Ghaziabad, alongwith complete bill and copy of account of AY 2011- 12, till close of account, copy of bank account and copy of PAN Card, as filed before AO; confirmed copy of account of M/s Shree Radhey Trading Co., Ghaziabad for AY 2010-11, copy of complete bill and copy of account of AY 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 till close of account and copy of PAN card, as filed before AO; confirmed copy of account of M/s Ganesh Traders Ghaziabad for AY 2010-11, alongwith copy of complete bills and copy of account of AY 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 till close of account, as filed before AO; summary of year wise copy of creditors, as filed before CIT(A); copy of reply dated 7.11.2012, as filed before AO; copy of reply dated 14.11.2012 as filed before AO; copy of reply dated 30.1.2013; as filed before AO; copy of reply dated 4.2.2013, as filed before AO; copy of reply dated 6.3.2013, alongwith summary of creditors with PAN & remakr, as filed before AO; copy of remand report furnished by AO; copy of reply of remand report dated 9.8.2014 as furnished before Ld. CIT(A); copy of scrutiny assessment for AY 2012-13 as completed by ITO and copy of scrutiny assessment for AY 2013-14 as completed by ITO. He requested that issue in dispute may be set aside to AO. 4. On contrary, Ld. DR relied upon orders of authorities below and opposed request of assessee s counsel. 5. I have heard both parties and carefully gone through orders passed by authorities below as well as Paper Books detailing evidences/documents, I am of view that evidences produced by assessee requires thorough examination at level of AO. Therefore, in interest of justice, I set aside issues in 4 dispute to file of AO for fresh consideration, as per law, after considering all documentary evidences. However, assessee is directed to fully cooperate with AO during proceedings before him and not to take any unnecessary adjournment in case and also produce all necessary evidences before AO to substantiate his claim. 6. In result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in Open Court on 04/10/2016. Sd/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER Date 04/10/2016 SRBHATNAGAR Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order, Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Benches M/s Nelco Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO, Ward-1, Hapur