9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 935X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). 3. Briefly stated the facts are, assessee an individual is engaged in the business of trading in chemical through his proprietory concern M/s. Deal Well Enterprises. For the assessment year under consideration, assessee filed his return of income on 29th September 2010, declaring total income of Rs. 6,58,690. On the basis of information received from Sales Tax Department, Mumbai, it was found by the Assessing Officer that certain dealers are only providing accommodation entries without doing any actual business. On going through the list of such dealers, Assessing Officer found that three parties from whom assessee had effected purchases are also included in the list of bogus dealers maintained by the Sales ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 69C of the Act. Being aggrieved by such addition of the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 4. In course of hearing before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee reiterating the stand taken before the Assessing Officer and also producing the documentary evidence such as ledger copies of the parties, copy of bank statement evidencing payment, stock register, bills and delivery challans evidencing purchase / sale of goods submitted, as the evidences brought on record clearly prove the genuineness of the purchases made, the addition is not proper. He also submitted, the sales effected by the assessee have not been doubted by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the purchases made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was justified in treating the purchases made from the concerned parties as bogus. 6. Learned Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted, since the Department has made the allegation that the purchases are bogus, the onus is on the Department to prove such fact through cogent evidences. He submitted, assessee is not a manufacturer but trader of goods and he simply purchases the goods for re-sale. He submitted, while the assessee has produced not only the confirmed ledger copies of the concerned parties, but all other necessary evidences like purchase bills, delivery challans, etc., to prove the genuineness of the transactions, whereas, the Assessing Officer has not brought even a single piece of evidence, except the information ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee had produced confirmed ledger copies of concerned parties, bank account statement, purchase bills, delivery challans, etc., to prove the genuineness of the purchases. It is also a fact on record that the Assessing Officer has not doubted the sales effected by the assessee. Thus, it is logical to conclude that without corresponding purchases being effected the assessee could not have made the sales. Moreover, the Assessing Officer has not brought any material on record to conclusively establish the fact that purchases are bogus. Merely relying upon the information from the Sales Tax Department or the fact that parties were not produced the Assessing Officer could not have treated the purchases as bogus and made addition. If the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
