9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d approved by the Customs Authority. This clearly shows that the goods had actually been purchased and received by the assessee. As such, these purchases could not have, by any stretch of imagination, been treated as bogus purchases. It is also noteworthy that the payments made by the assessee to Zalak Impex were through account payee cheques only. Neither of the Taxing Authorities, however, took these invoices into consideration and wrongly held the assessee’s purchases from Zalak Impex to be bogus purchases. Nothing has been brought on record to show that these invoices were self made or fabricated. Moreover, the comparative chart of purchases made during the year and the selling price (page 141-144), as filed before the ld. CIT(A) has no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8-12-2011, incurring a delay of 10 days. In view of the contents of the affidavit, finding it to be a case of sufficient cause preventing the filing of the appeal in time, the delay is condoned. 3. ITA No. 6435/Mum/2013, for A.Y. 2006-07 is Department s appeal against the ld. CIT(A) s action of deletion of concealment penalty of ₹ 11,94,545/- imposed on the assessee in the aforesaid matter. 4. As per the record, the completed assessment of the assessee for the year under consideration, i.e. A.Y. 2006-07 was reopened on the basis that information was received from the ITO -25(20(1), Mumbai, that during the survey proceedings conducted at the premises of M/s Zalak Impex, a proprietary concern of one Shri Hiten L. Rawal. The said a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever provided to the assessee and no opportunity of cross examination of Shri Rawal was afforded to the assessee, thereby leading to the illegal addition, which was wrongly sustained in part by the ld. CIT(A), though it ought to have been deleted in full. 7. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, relying on the impugned order, has contended that as per the assessment order, the A.O. had asked the assessee to produce Shri Hiten L. Rawal, which the assessee did not do; and that therefore, the addition made by the A.O. was perfectly justified and it ought to have been confirmed in its entirety. 8. Having heard the parties and having perused the material on record, we find that the completed assessment of the assessee was reopened on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 25-11-2010, inter alia, that during the year, they had purchased diamonds worth ₹ 4,09,12,718/- from M/s Zalak Impex; that the assessee being in an export promotion zone, the movement of its goods is controlled and customs approved; that the purchases being approved purchases, there was no question of their being bogus purchases. The assessee enclosed the custom approved invoices in respect of purchases from Zalak Impex. These invoices have been produced before us also, in the paper book filed by the assessee. As per these invoices, the goods purchased had been verified and approved by the Customs Authority. This clearly shows that the goods had actually been purchased and received by the assessee. As such, these purchases could no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
