9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 752X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee. All these factors, in our opinion, cast a serious doubt on assessee’s claim. CIT(A) erred in giving full relief to the assessee by observing that the cross examination was not provided to the assessee whereas the assessee could not discharge the primary onus of proving the transactions beyond doubt. The adverse material, as available on record was duly confronted to the assessee whereas the assessee could not substantiate delivery of material and also could not produce any of the four parties to confirm the transactions. Addition, in our opinion, which could be made, was to account for profit element embedded in these purchase transactions to factorize for profit earned by assessee against possible purchase of material in the gre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m four such dealers, the details of which have been extracted in para-3.1 of the quantum assessment order. The copies of the material available with the department, in this regard, were confronted to the assessee. Further, notices u/s 133(6) sent to all such suppliers to confirm the transactions elicited no satisfactory response. The assessee defended the purchases and submitted that the impugned purchases were made through brokers and payment of the material was through banking channels and therefore, the purchases were genuine. However, not convinced with assessee s submissions, Ld. AO noted that the assessee failed to substantiate the delivery of material and therefore, added the same to the income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d its claim by furnishing relevant bills, bank statements and considering the fact that without purchase of raw material and job work charges incurred, manufacture could not have been possible, addition was not justified and was required to be deleted. The case of the appellant is also supported by the judgment in the case of Jagdamba Trading Co. vs. ITO (2007) 107 TTJ 398 (Jodhpur) wherein it was held that since there is no evidence of the assessee receiving any money back, the purchase in question could not be held to be bogus. In the case of ITO vs. parmanand (2008) 25 SOT 11 (Jodhpur) it has been very categorically held that where the AO has made addition merely on the basis of observations made by the Sales Tax Dept and has not conduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esh P. Shah and therefore, dismissed in limine. 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative [DR], Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, submitted that the assessee miserably failed to substantiate the purchases made during impugned AY and therefore, the stand of Ld. CIT(A) was not justified. The same has been controverted by Ld. AR by submitting that no opportunity of cross examination was provided to the assessee and therefore, the stand of Ld. CIT(A) was reasonable under the circumstances. 5. We have carefully heard the rival contentions and perused relevant material on record. Upon due consideration of factual matrix, we find that the assessee, during impugned AY, was engaged in construction activities, which could not be carried out without a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
