9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd arguments made in one case will be equally applicable to the other and therefore all the appeals can be heard together. We therefore for the sake of convenience, proceed to decide all the appeals by a consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, we set out the facts in ITA No 1781 for AY 1996-97, as culled out from the orders as under: 3. Assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of pharmaceutical products. Assessee filed its return on income for AY 1996-97 on 28.11.2006 declaring total income of Rs 28,39,540/-. Assessment was framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 19.3.1999 and the total income was assessed at Rs 2,56,31,707/-. Subsequently the assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and order was passed u/s 143 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... & Co who was controlling the affairs of Alpha traders, R.V.Chem and Wise Pharma. During the course of assessment proceedings pursuant to directions of ITAT, summons were issued to Wise Pharma and Alpha Traders on 8.8.2007 at the addresses available on record. A copy of the letter was also addressed to Assessee to provide present addresses of the parties and the copy of their accounts. In response to the notice, Alpha traders vide letter dated 18th Aug 2007 submitted to have done no transactions with the parties. Summons issued in case of R.V.Chem & Wise Pharma were returned back unserved by postal authorities. The Assessee was thereafter asked to furnish the complete addresses or the agents through whom it had made purchases and copy of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the appellant. Thus the A.O. has not followed the specific directions of the Hon'ble ITAT. Further the Hon'ble ITAT had directed that in case the A.O. did not want to utilize that statement, the assessment can be framed on the basis of the material already on record. In this regard it is seen that the appellant had furnished the details of raw material purchased and its consumption both before my predecessor CIT(A) as also the Hon'ble ITAT. These details were once again submitted during the assessment proceedings. No adverse inference has been drawn with reference to such details/records submitted by the appellant. In view of the facts stated above, I have to hold that the impugned order in appeal has been passed by the A.O. without follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove the purchases was not discharged. In view of these facts, the Ld .D.R. urged that the addition made by the AO be sustained. 8. The Ld.A.R. on the other hand supported the order of CIT(A). 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal is with respect to addition made on account of bogus purchases. Assessee has stated to have made purchases aggregating to Rs 13,19,645/- from 3 parties namely, Alpa traders (Rs 5120/-), R.V.Chem (Rs 485571/-) and Wise Pharma (Rs 825954/-). In view of the statement of director of Rizvi & Co, who was controlling the affairs of Alpha traders, R.V.Chem and Wise Pharma, the purchases were held to be bogus. Matter was carried before ITAT. ITAT vide or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee can be distinguished from a situation where a person gives a mere statement against some. We have heard the parties. We fail to subscribe to the view of the CIT(A) because when a statement given by a person or party is being relied against the assessee for making any addition, the assessee should be given an opportunity to cross-examine the person or party to bring out the exact fact on record. The case, of the assessee is supported by the decision of Orissa High Court in the case of C1T Vs. Biju Patnaik (190 1TR 396) and Gujarat High Court in the case of C1T Vs. D.M. Joshi And Others (239 ITR 315). In the appeal under consideration, the Department having failed to allow cross- examination, the order of the CIT(A) and the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In these circumstances since the additions pertains to purchases, the onus was on the Assessee to prove the genuineness of the same, which in our view the Assessee has failed to discharge. In such circumstances the action of AO in treating the purchases cannot be faulted. 11. We find that the co-ordinate Bench of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Vijay Protiens Ltd Vs ACIT (1996) 55 TTJ (ahd) 76 where the assessee had failed to produce the alleged suppliers, brokers and transporters or any other evidence to prove the genuineness of transactions purchases, had held the purchases to be bogus and 25% of the purchase amount was disallowed. 12. In the present case, we find that the facts are identical to that of Vijay Protiens (supra). In view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
