9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon him to cause further inquiries in the matter to ascertain the genuineness or otherwise of the transactions. Without causing any further enquires in respect of the said purchases, the AO cannot make the said addition on account of bogus purchases by merely relying on information obtained from the Sales Tax Department, the statement/affidavit of third parties without the assessee being afforded any opportunity of cross examination of that persons and for non-response to notices under section 133(6) of the Act. In the factual matrix of the case, where the AO failed to cause any enquiry to be made to establish his suspicions that the said purchases are bogus, the assessee has brought on record documentary evidences to establish the genui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suspicious dealers listed by the Sales Tax Department, the AO noticed that the assessee had made purchases in the year under consideration from the following dealers, the details of which are as under: - Sr.No. Name of alleged supplier Amount (Rs. ) 1 Shiv Industries 4,67,888/- 2 Sidhivinayak Steels 1,84,950/- 3 Krish Corporation 3,82,500/- 4 Sagar Enterprises 1,51,313/- 5 Asian Steel 2,53,125/- 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c refineries in Maharashtra and Gujarat; which sales can be identified with purchases made. In order to ascertain the genuineness of these purchases, the AO issued notices to these parties to which there was no response. AO also recorded statement of the late assessee s son and Legal Heir, Shri Sagar Sanjay Goel, under section 131 of the Act. The AO did not accept the explanation put forth by the assessee and brushed aside the evidence/details placed before him, as he was of the view that the assessee s explanation did not prove the purchases were genuine and also for the reason that the assessee failed to produce those parties from whom purchases were made for examination in this regard. In that view of the matter, the AO treated the afore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... information from the Sales Tax Department that the assessee had resorted to bogus purchases and on being confronted, failed to produce evidence in respect of the purchases. (2) The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set side and that of the AO be restored. (3) The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary. 3.2 The learned D.R. was heard in support of the grounds raised. It was contended that since the 15 parties from whom purchases were made by the assessee, in the year under consideration, did not respond to notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act issued by the AO and documentary evidence to support the purchases from these partie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... profit thereon; evidence of moving out of the these goods, etc. It is a fact evident from the record that the AO has not doubted the sales affected by the assessee and therefore it is in order to conclude that without corresponding purchases being made, the assessee could not have effected sales. 3.3.2 In our considered view, the AO has not brought on record any material evidence to conclusively prove that the said purchases are bogus. Mere reliance by the AO on information obtained from the Sales Tax Department or the sworn statement of the parties before the Sales Tax Department, without affording the assessee any opportunity to cross examine those witnesses in this regard or the fact that these parties did not respond to notice under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cerned parties is through proper banking channels and there is no evidence brought on record by the AO to establish that the said payments were routed back to the assessee, the addition made by the AO as bogus purchases is unsustainable. We are fortified in this view of ours by the decisions of, inter alia, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises P. Ltd. (372 ITR 619) (Bom), Ashish International (supra) and the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Rajeev G. Kalathil (ITA No. 6727/Mum/2012 dated 20.08.2014 for A.Y. 2009-10). In the factual matrix of the case, as discussed above, we find no requirement for interference in the order of the learned CIT(A) and consequently up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
