9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 316 - AT - Income TaxBogus purchases - non personal appearance of Company from whom assessee made purchases - CIT-A deleted addition - HELD THAT - No adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee merely because of non personal appearance of the Prop. of Bengali Chain Co. before the Ld. AO from whom the assessee had made purchases. Admittedly, in response to summons issued by the Ld. AO u/s 131 Shri Muni Ram Verma, Prop. of Balaji Chain Co. appeared before the Ld. AO on 15.02.2019 and his statement was duly recorded in which he confirmed having made sale of jewellery items to the assessee during the year. CIT(A) has observed appellate order that in the statement Shri Muni Ram Verma, Prop. of Balaji Chain Co. clearly states that he is furnishing bank statement and also furnished statement of copy of account and copy of bills as proof of transactions and sales and payment. CIT(A) also recorded finding of fact with which we agree that proper and satisfactory answers to all questions were given and documents required in terms of notice were already produced by Shri Muni Ram Verma, Prop. of Balaji Chain Co. We decline to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) holding that the impugned addition is not justified. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues:
Appeal against order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) pertaining to AY 2006-07 - Deletion of additions by AO - Purchases from M/s Bajaji Chain & Co. and M.s Bengali Chain & Co. treated as bogus - Genuineness of transactions questioned - Remand proceedings - Verification of documents - Tribunal decision. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi involved the Revenue challenging the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the assessment year 2006-07. The Revenue raised multiple grounds of appeal, primarily contesting the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) concerning purchases from M/s Bajaji Chain & Co. and M.s Bengali Chain & Co., which were treated as bogus. The Revenue argued that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by not appreciating the detailed findings given by the AO in the Remand Report. The case revolved around an assessee company engaged in the manufacturing and trading of gold jewellery, gold chains, and resale of bullion. Initially, the assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 2,35,40,300/-, against which the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), leading to the subsequent Tribunal decision. The Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order on the issue of purchases amounting to Rs. 2,17,64,152/- for fresh consideration. In the fresh decision, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the AO, emphasizing the genuineness of transactions and the supporting evidence provided by the parties involved. During the proceedings, the Ld. DR representing the Revenue contended that necessary documents were not filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), hindering proper verification. However, the Ld. AR for the assessee refuted this claim, stating that all essential documents were submitted and considered by the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that certain details were treated as additional evidence, prompting a fresh decision after providing an opportunity to the AO for hearing. The Ld. CIT(A) subsequently called for a report from the AO, who confirmed the transactions and supporting documents. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that both parties involved in the purchases confirmed receiving payments and provided the required documents during the remand proceedings. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal, concluding that the impugned additions were not justified based on the evidence presented. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision. In summary, the Tribunal's judgment emphasized the importance of proper verification, adherence to procedural rules, and the significance of supporting evidence in establishing the genuineness of transactions, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
|
