2015 (7) TMI 362 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance invoking the provisions of 69C - FAA deleted the addition - Held that - AO had made the addition as one of the supplier was declared a hawala dealer by the VAT Department. We agree that it was a good starting point for making further investigation and take it to logical end.But,he left the job at initial point itself. Suspicion of highest degree cannot take place of evidence. He could have called for the details of the bank accounts of the suppliers to find out as whether there was any immediate cash withdrawal from their account.We find that no such exercise was done. Transportation of good to the site is one of the deciding factor to be considered for resolving the issue.The FAA has given a finding of fact that part of the goods received by the assessee was forming part of closing stock.A There is nothing, in the order of the AO,about the cash trail. Secondly, proof of movement of goods is not in doubt. Thererfore, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case under appeal,we are of the opinion that the order of the FAA does not suffer from any legal infirmity and there are not sufficient evidence on file to endorse the view taken by the AO.So,confirming the order of the FAA - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Addition made under section 69C of the Income Tax Act for alleged unexplained expenditure.
2. Reliance on judgment and differences in facts.
3. Undelivered notices to parties and failure to produce them.
4. Failure to rebut findings of sales tax department on bogus purchases.
5. Deletion of addition by the First Appellate Authority (FAA).

Issue 1: Addition under section 69C:
The Assessing Officer (AO) raised grounds of appeal challenging the deletion of an addition of Rs. 1,37,65,667 made under section 69C of the Income Tax Act. The AO contended that the purchases were suspicious as the suppliers were listed as "suspicious dealers" by the sales tax department. Despite the assessee's arguments that purchases were genuine and supported by documents, the AO considered the purchases unexplained and added the amount to the total income.

Issue 2: Reliance on judgment and factual differences:
The AO also objected to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) relying on a judgment involving different facts. The FAA, however, found that the purchases were made through legitimate channels, supported by bank statements and other documents. The FAA held that the AO did not conduct independent inquiries and failed to counter the evidence provided by the assessee. Citing various cases, the FAA deleted the addition made by the AO.

Issue 3: Undelivered notices and failure to produce parties:
The AO argued that notices sent to the alleged suppliers were returned undelivered, and the assessee failed to produce them despite opportunities. The FAA, however, noted that the assessee provided evidence of payments through bank accounts and other supporting documents, leading to the deletion of the addition.

Issue 4: Failure to rebut sales tax department findings:
The AO contended that the assessee did not rebut the findings of the sales tax department regarding bogus purchases. The FAA, on the other hand, emphasized that the assessee's evidence of payments and legitimate transactions outweighed the suspicions raised by the sales tax department, ultimately resulting in the deletion of the addition.

Issue 5: Deletion of addition by FAA:
The FAA, after considering all submissions and evidence, concluded that the purchases were genuine, supported by proper documentation, and part of the regular business activities of the assessee. Relying on various precedents and cases, the FAA deleted the addition made by the AO, leading to the dismissal of the appeal filed by the AO.

In summary, the judgment involved a detailed analysis of the addition made under section 69C, the reliance on legal precedents, the failure to produce parties and rebut findings, and the ultimate deletion of the addition by the FAA based on the evidence provided by the assessee.