IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM . ITA No.75/PUN/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/s. A. G. Conveying Systems Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.322-A, Plot No.6 & 7, Pirangut, Lavale Road, Pune-412111. PAN : AACGA8534L Appellant V/s. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Pune. Respondent Assessee by : Shri S. N. Puranik Revenue by : Mrs. Shabana Parveen Date of Hearing : 30.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 19.09.2019 ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: This appeal is filed by assessee against order of CIT(A)-1, Pune dated 24.11.2015 for Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. grounds raised by assessee are as under :- 1. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition made by Assessing Officer on rejecting expenditure on purchases Rs. 22,33,000/-. Appellant prays for cancellation of said addition. 2. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition made by Assessing Officer of Rs. 50,000/-. Out of wages, under head site expenses. Same may please be allowed. 3. CIT(A) has erred in not accepting Additional evidence submitted as clinching evidence. 4. Without prejudice to above grounds, even as per CIT(A) s own version, if bills are for square of outstanding from supplier, said loss may please be allowed. 5. Orders passed by lower authorities are bad in law for not allowing cross examination and not verifying signatures certified by handwriting expert. 6. Appellant Prays for just and equitable relief. 2 ITA No.75/PUN/2016 7. Appellant prays to add, alter, amend, modify, delete any ground if any. 3. From above extracted grounds, (i) addition of Rs.22,33,000/- on account of purchases; and (ii) addition of Rs.50,000/- on account of disallowances out of wages under head site expenses, are merits related issue for adjudication. CIT(A) s failure to admit additional evidences and not granting of cross examination of parties is another legal issues raised in grounds. 4. Briefly stated relevant facts include that assessee is engaged in business of manufacturing of bulk material handling system. assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.82,29,736/-. Assessing Officer scrutinized return and determined assessed income at Rs.1,06,65,490/-. Assessing Officer made couple of additions as per discussion given in para 15 of assessment order. On issue of addition of Rs.2,02,750/-, Assessing Officer held that there are no supporting evidences in favour of genuineness of site expenses. Assessing Officer held that claim of assessee is not full proof transactions as they are made by way of cash bills. Rs.2,02,750/-, out of total expenses of Rs.40,54,986/-, added to return income of assessee. 5. Further, on issue of addition of Rs.22,33,000/-, Assessing Officer initiated efforts to verify genuineness of purchases. provisions of section 133(6) of Act were also invoked in respect of M/s. C.N. Jain & Sons, suppliers of material. M/s. C.N. Jain & Sons gave categorical statement denying supply of any material for said financial year 2007- 3 ITA No.75/PUN/2016 08. statement on oath u/s 131 of Act of Shri Satish Jain was also confirmed against assessee. Accordingly, claim of assessee was rejected by Assessing Officer and disallowed same u/s 37(1) of Act. assessee filed invoices bearing Invoices No.3/07/08 and 4/07/08 commonly dated 31.03.2008 in this regard. It is claim of assessee that said invoices received by assessee only on 31.03.2008. CIT(A) examined said invoices and confirmed addition made by Assessing Officer. 6. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us with above extracted grounds. 7. Before us, ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that these issues need to be remanded to file of Assessing Officer with direction to audit additional evidences. ld. Counsel mentioned that questions framed by Assessing Officer during proceedings before him u/s 131 of Act should be relevant to assessment year under consideration. Ld. Counsel also seeks proper direction to Assessing Officer for want of speaking order and also providing of benefit of cross-examination of suppliers. 8. On other hand, ld. DR for Revenue relied heavily on orders of Assessing Officer and CIT(A). 9. On hearing both sides and considering facts, we find there is some confusion in amount mentioned in concerned invoices qua for relevant financial year in which purchases were made from M/s. C.N. Jain & Sons. It is in interest of administration of justice to admit said 4 ITA No.75/PUN/2016 additional evidences. It is duty of Assessing Officer to grant benefit of cross-examination, wherever needed as per law. Considering same, in our view, there is requirement of passing speaking order at end of Assessing Officer in all matters under consideration. Thus, grounds raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 19th day of September, 2019. Sd/- Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pune; Dated : 19th September, 2019 Sujeet Copy of Order forwarded to : 1. Appellant. 2. Respondent. 3. CIT(A)-1, Pune. 4. Pr. CCIT, Pune. 5. DR, ITAT, Bench, Pune. 6. Guard File. BY ORDER, True Copy Senior Private Secretary , ITAT, Pune. A. G. Conveying Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Pune