9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ends of justice and no prejudice would be caused to the revenue - Decided in favour of assessee by way of remand. - I.T.A. No.4511/Mum/2015, Cross-Objection No.92/Mum/2016 - - - Dated:- 8-7-2016 - SHRI A.D.JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Revenue : Shri Ajay For The Assessee : Shri Bhupendra Shah ORDER PER A D JAIN (JM) The revenue has filed this appeal for assessment year 2009-10 challenging the order of ld.CIT(A) dated 7.5.2015. The assessee also filed cross-objection thereto. These were clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience. 2. First of all, we will deal with the appeal of the revenue . We find from the orders of authorities below that the tax eff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessee filed a return of income on 30.7.2009, declaring a total income of ₹ 276270/-. Information was received from the Director General of Income Tax, Mumbai. The information was that the Sales Tax Department, Mumbai has exercised due diligence, which revealed that the assessee is involved in taking accommodation entry of bogus purchases from M/s Tara Enterprises amounting to ₹ 9,62,728/- and M/s Sagar Enterprises of ₹ 12,62,560/-; and that the proprietor/principal person of the aforesaid companies have recorded their statements on oath by the Sales Tax Department and in the said statements they have stated that they have not carried out actual trading activity and have only issued bogus bills/accommodation. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who, in turn, after considering the facts and submissions of the assessee, partly allowed the appeal and restricted the disallowance to ₹ 549,250/-, being 25% of the purchases. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Bench. 6. The ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted before me that the AO has made an addition only on the basis of information received from the Director General of Income Tax, Mumbai, which was based on the information from the Sales Tax Department, Mumbai, that the assessee is involved in providing accommodation entries to the purchasers. The ld. AR submitted that, the ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AY-2009-10) dated 1.1.2016. 7. On the contrary, the ld.DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 8. I have heard the rival contentions and have perused the material available, including the orders of the authorities below and the case laws relied upon by the parties. 9. I find from the orders of the authorities below that the AO has made the addition under section 69C of the Act on the basis of the report provided by the State Sales Department and the statements of the parties, as recorded by the Sales Tax Department. The Id. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the AO. I find from the record that though the assessee has provided documentary evidences, these documents have not been considered by the authorities b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gly, he assessed the same u/s 69C of the Act. 11. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition and hence the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 12. The ld. DR strongly placed reliance on the order of Assessing Officer. 13. On the other hand, the ld. AR submitted that the additions made in the case of some other assesses on identical reasons have been deleted by the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the following cases : a) Ramesh Kumar and Co V/s ACIT in ITA No.2959/Mum/2014 (AY-2010-11) dated 28.11.2014; b) DCIT V/s Shri Rajeev G Kalathil in ITA No.6727/Mum/2012 (AY-2009-10) dated 20.8.2014; and c) Shri Ganpatraj A Sanghavi V/s ACIT in ITA No. 2826/Mum/2013 (AY-2009-10) dated 5.11.2014 In all the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with his order on this issue. 10. On similar lines this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Greentex Exports India V/s ITO , in ITA No. 3311/Mum/2015 (AY-2009-10) vide order dated 4.7.2016, authored by the undersigned has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 11. There also, no independent enquiry had been conducted by the Department. Since the issue raised in this appeal stands covered by the aforesaid orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
