9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the appeal of the assessee on the basis of principle of consistency as the similar addition/disallowance was deleted from the assessment of subsequent year. The ld DR could not differentiate as to how the facts for the year under consideration was different for the assessment year 2010-11. Hence, we do not find any ground to interfere in the finding of ld Commissioner (Appeals). - Decided against revenue - ITA No.929/Mum/2015 - - - Dated:- 8-2-2017 - S/Sh. Rajendra, Accountant Member Pawan Singh, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Ms. Beena Santosh (DR) For the Respondent : None ORDER Per Pawan Singh, J.M. 1. This appeal by Revenue under section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act( Act ) is directed against the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supply of goods. The sale Tax Department of State Government recorded their statements, deposition and affidavit etc. On the basis of said information the AO had reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the relevant assessment year. The assessee objected to the reopening vide his letter dated 12 August 2013. The assessee objected that, the said dealers were merely suspicious dealer as per the Department; there was no evidence to prove that purchases are bogus and the reasons was recorded only on the basis of borrowed satisfaction / third-party information. The assessee further contended that this was nothing but a change of opinion. The objection of the assessee was rejected by AO on 25 September 2013. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... failed to produce all the parties for verification of the purchases. Assessee made the purchases from the parties who were listed in the website of Sale tax Department of Government of Maharashtra and was engaged in providing bogus bills without any sale or purchase or making any delivery of goods. The onus to prove the purchases are genuine was upon the assessee, and the assessee failed to prove the same before the Assessing Officer. The ld DR prayed that order of AO may be restored by setting aside the order of ld Commissioner (Appeals). 4. We have considered the contention of landed AR for the revenue and gone through the orders of authorities below. The AO made the addition during the reassessment proceeding holding that the onus wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. The ld CIT(A) after considering the contention of the assessee passed the following order; In appeal I find that the assessee has made the same submissions which are identical to the ones made before my predecessor who passed an order in the case of the assessee on the same issue on 10.05.2013. Detailed regions for given decision in favour of the appellant are found in para 5.3 of the appellate order for AY 2010-11. I find that the facts and circumstances and the information available on the judicial decision considered by my predecessor are identical to the current appeal. Therefore, in the light of the same facts and issue is decided in favour of appellant for the present year also. The appeal is allowed. 5. We have seen that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
