9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1083X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng all these appeals by this common order. 3. The Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer while completing the assessments in all these cases based on the information received from Sale Tax Department that certain dealers are providing only accommodation bills required the assessee to prove the genuineness of the purchases made from those parties. The Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that assessee has furnished all the requisite details in the form of invoices, bank statements etc., and disbelieving the evidences furnished by the assessee the Assessing Officer concluded that the purchases made by the assessee are not genuine. He submits that this conclusion was arrived only based on the information obtained from the Sales Tax Department. He submits that the said to have been received from the Sales Tax Department is not given to the assessee. The Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee has produced ledger copies of the concerned parties, all other necessary evidences like purchase bills, bank statement proving the payments made through cheques etc., to prove the genuineness of the transactions and whereas the Assessing O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Counsel for the assessee further submits that on identical circumstances the Jurisdictional High Court as well as the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal deleted the additions in the following cases:- Sl.No. Particulars Citation / ITA Nos 1. ITO Vs Takhtmal Bhuralal Pichholiya 4526 to 4528/M/2014 2. ITO Vs.Hiren Shantilal Doshi 715/M/2015 3. ACIT vs.Vishal P.Mehta 5313/M/2013 4. ITO Vs. Ashok Talreja (HuF) 4629/M/2014 and others 5. Talco Marketing vs ITO 3394 and 3395/M/2014 6. DCIT vs Rajeev G.Kalthil 6727/M/2012 7. ITO Vs. Paresh Arvind Gandhi 5706/M/2013 8. ITO vs. Sanjay V Dhruv 5089/M/2014 9. CIT vs Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (BOM) 10. Diagnostics Vs CIT 334 ITR 111 (Cal) 11. CIT Vs. M.K.Bothers 163 ITR 249 (Guj) 12. CIT vs. Nangalia Fabrics (P) Ltd. (2013) 40 Taxmann.com 206(Guj) 8. Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that in view of these above decisions the addition/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer towards alleged bogus purchases be deleted. Ld.DR vehemently supported the orders of lower authorities. 9. We have heard the rival submissions perused the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missions of the parties and perused the material available on record. It is evident from the assessment order that on the basis of information obtained from the Sales Tax Department, Assessing Officer issued notices under section 133(6) to three parties out of which two notices were returned unserved by the postal authorities and in case of one of the parties through notice was served, there was no response. Therefore, he called upon the assessee to produce the concerned parties. As the assessee failed to produce the concerned parties, the Assessing Officer, therefore, primarily relying upon the information obtained from the Sales Tax Department, held the purchases to be bogus and made addition under section 69C of the Act. Though, it may be a fact that assessee was not able to produce the concerned parties before the Assessing Officer, for whatever may be the reason, fact remains during assessment proceedings itself the assessee 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts, the Assessing Officer has simply relied upon the information received from DGIT (Inv.), to infer that purchases made from certain parties as referred to in the assessment order and reproduced in earlier part of our order are bogus. In fact, in the assessment order, nowhere the Assessing Officer has discussed in detail the nature of information obtained from DGIT (Inv.) nor the specific adverse material on the basis of which the allegation of bogus purchases were made. Undisputedly, before the Assessing Officer, the assessee had produced its books of account, purchase bills, bank statements, etc. It is also not disputed that the payment made towards purchases are through account payee cheques and reflected not only in the books of account but in the bank account copies. It is settled position of law, entries made in the books of account in regular course ordinarily, shall be presumed to be correct unless there is strong evidence to prove the contrary. It is an admitted position that the Assessing Officer has not rejected the books of account of the assessee. This pre-supposes that there is no discrepancy in the books of account of the assessee. That being the case, the purchases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al but also allow him opportunity to cross-examine the so called bogus dealers. As noted by us and it is also a fact on record, before the Assessing Officer assessee had submitted purchase invoices, books of account, etc., to prove the genuineness of purchases. In addition, it is not disputed that the entire payments towards purchases have been made through account payee cheque. Before the first appellate authority, the assessee had produced copies of delivery challans and also confirmations from the concerned dealers to prove the purchases. Thus, these documentary evidences produced by the assessee demonstrate that to some extent the assessee did discharge its onus to prove the genuineness of the purchases. As opposed to this, the Assessing Officer except the report of the DGIT (Inv.) had not brought on record any other cogent / corroborating evidence to prove the purchases as bogus. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer has not made any independent enquiry by even issuing notices under section 133(6) to the so called bogus suppliers. That being the case, if the A.O. or the learned CIT(A) were not satisfied with the evidences produced by the assessee and still had doubt with regard to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er taking into account all the facts before concluding that the purchases of Rs..1.33 Crores was not bogus. No fault can be found with the order dated 30.04.2010 of the Tribunal." 13. In view of the above discussion we hold that there is no material on record to conclusively prove that the purchases made by the assessee are bogus purchases and nothing has been brought on record by the revenue to suggest that the information gathered by the Sales Tax Department conclusively prove that the said dealers are providing only the accommodation entries to the assessee's before us. Thus we hold that addition made u/s 69 cannot be sustained. 14. However, at the same time keeping in view the nature of the business of the assessee and the fact that the assessee is making local purchases the possibility of assessee making purchases without any transportation bills, delivery challans etc., in gray market on cash cannot be ruled out. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the Gross Profit declared by the assessee during the current assessment year as well as in the earlier assessment years, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
