9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1805X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed:- 20-9-2017 - SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Mrs. Ruchi M. Rathod, A.R. For the Respondent : Shri N. Hemalatha, D.R. ORDER Per D.T. Garasia, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 03.03.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2009-10. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in business as dealer in office and school stationery items on wholesale and retail basis. During the year the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) found that assessee had made bogus purchases from following parties: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er is subject to verifiability thereof from record of AO. Appropriate reduction may be made thereof from impugned purchases subject to evidence being on record of AO. The grounds are partly allowed. 5. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the purchases made by the assessee are genuine though the venders are found to be defaulters on the record of Sales Tax Department. Assessee has maintained proper and sufficient records and assessee has been in business for more than 27 years. The assessee has placed sufficient information and produced ledger account and bank statement. To verify the claim of purchases, notice under section 133(6) was issued to the supplier but party couldn t be produced. Therefore, 4% on GP has been sustained by Ld. CIT(A). Bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rts have held that when purchases are supported by sufficient documentary evidences then merely because of non-appearance before the AO, one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the assessee. Several decisions cited in support of the said argument are Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 216 Taxman 171 (Bom.), CIT v. Nangalia Fabrics (P.) Ltd. 220 Taxmann 17 (Guj.), CIT v. M.K. Bros. 163 ITR 249 (Guj.), Asstt. CIT v. Akruti Dyeing Printing Mills (P.) Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 997 of 2008, dated 27/01/2009],CIT v. Veekay Prints (P.) Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 2557 of 2010, dated. 1/2/2012], Diagnostics v. CIT 334 ITR 111 (Cal.), ITO v. Totaram B. Sharma [Tax Appeal Nos. 1344/2008 1355/2008, dated 9-2-2010], Dy. CIT v. Adinath In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
