9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 855X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s carrying on the business of issuing bogus accommodation bills on commission basis with the assessee; which was not put to the assessee, for rebuttal or cross-examination. Ld counsel for the revenue had laid great stress on the fact that the Department had carried out investigation which revealed that purchases have been made from non-existent parties and this was established by virtue of the fact that inquiries with the banks of the suppliers had revealed that they were operated by Sh. Ashok Kumar, who was the brother of Sh. T.R. Chadda or his employees. We note that this aspect of the matter was obviously not put to the assessee as this was not part of the report which the inspector had prepared for the perusal of AO. Therefore, this sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies from whom purchases of ₹ 1 lakh and above had been made by the assessee during the relevant period. The Assessing Officer also deputed an inspector to conduct inquiries at the addresses provided by the assessee. Based on the inquiry carried out by the inspector the Assessing Officer made an addition of a sum of ₹ 54,50,276 on the ground that the assessee had made bogus purchases. Being aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) by a detailed order deleted the disallowance of ₹ 54,50,276 made by the Assessing Officer. Against this the revenue went up in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment sustained the order of the CIT(A). Before us the learned counsel for the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the item-wise stock register maintained by the assessee; (iv)all payments for purchases have been made by cheques; (v)a complete quantitative analysis between purchases made and corresponding sales were prepared and filed before the Assessing Officer. The quantitative analysis made has not been called into question by the Assessing Officer; (vi)ledger accounts of the six suppliers showed substantial debit balances indicating that the assessee had made advance payments to the suppliers on several dates. 6. In view of this the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deletion made by the CIT(A) had to be sustained. The Tribunal in particular, noted that the Department having accepted the purchases, it could not have been assumed that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
