9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht to have considered the materials on record, especially, when it has come on record that the said party has not filed the return of income. The Tribunal was swayed away by the contention of the respondent – assessee, but lost sight of the fact that the Revenue has also raised the issue of addition of ₹ 3,38,72,852/- to be non-genuine purchases. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal concerned to re-hear the matter afresh and decide the appeal on merits. - Income Tax Appeal No. - 284 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 17-1-2019 - Bharati Sapru And Piyush Agrawal JJ. For the Appellant : Manu Ghildyal For the Respondent : Suyash Agarwal ORDER PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. The present appeal has been filed under section 260 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2) of the Act was issued fixing the date of hearing as 28.09.2010. The notice was duly served. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued along with the questionnaire dated 12.02.2011 fixing the date of hearing as 23.02.2011. In response to the said notice, details were furnished by the respondent assessee. In order to verify the genuineness of purchase declared by the assessee respondent, notices under section 133(6) of the Act were issued to 19 parties, out of which, notices upon two parties, namely, Mohit Trading Company, A-1/307, Sector 6, Rohini, Delhi 85 and Surana Brothers, C 106, MP Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi 34, were returned back unserved. The total purchase of the said two parties were declared t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reason, the enquiry letters issued by the Department had been returned unserved. Never the less, keeping in view the quantum of disallowance and as a measure of abundant caution, the AO is directed to conduct enquiry with the AO having jurisdiction over the PAN of this party and ascertain whether return of income had been filed for the relevant year by this party and if so, he had disclosed turnover of business in such return, in excess of the amount of purchases, shown by the assessee as having made from the said party. If the result of such verification is negative, the addition is confirmed. Otherwise, the AO is directed to delete the addition. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, cross-appeals were filed before the Tribunal. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the I.T. Act on the total income of ₹ 6.25 crores. The Assissing Officer has made an addition of ₹ 3,38,72,852/- in respect of certain purchases made by the respondent assessee from Mohit Trading Company (amounting to ₹ 2.10 crores) and Surana Brothers (amounting to ₹ 1.28 crores). Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order, the respondent assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), who by order dated 28.03.2013, has observed that both, during the course of assessment as well as remand proceedings, the enquiry letters issued to the aforesaid two parties, had been returned unserved and the assessee could not produce the said two identities before the Assessing Officer. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, again, an order dated 08.08.2014 was passed by the Assessing Officer and it was again brought on record that there was neither information regarding filing of return of income of the said party, i.e., Shri Chhaggan Lal Jain, Proprietor of M/s Mohit Trading Company M/s Surana Brothers, nor has been furnished by the said assessee. This information is vital for verification of purchases made by the assessee from the said party as per direction given by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Meerut in his order dated 28.03.2013. The aforesaid information was also provided to the respondent assessee, but no contrary material was brought on record to show that the returns of income were filed by the said party and therefore, the purc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
