9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 540X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The right to rebut to such adverse material should have been provided to assessee for explanation of assessee. These facts are sufficient to hold that the material collected by Jaipur Investigation Wing cannot be used in evidence against the assessee. Further the assessee produced copies of the purchase bills, U.P. Trade Tax Department and bank statements to prove that purchases are made from these parties through purchase bills and through banking channel. All items of purchases have been declared to U.P. Trade Tax Department and in the declaration even the weight of the items have been mentioned. The A.O. did not make any investigation on the same and without any investigation disbelieved the documentary evidences produced on record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .Y. 2007-2008 : 3. This appeal by assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-XIX, New Delhi, Dated 07.06.2010, for the A.Y. 2007-2008, challenging the addition of ₹ 17,45,000/- on account of bogus purchases. 4. The facts of the case are that assessee company filed return of income declaring income of ₹ 2,46,437/-. During the year under consideration the assessee company carried out the business of trading of Gold and Diamond Jewellery, silver items, saree and other items. Information from the Jaipur Investigation Wing was received that certain persons were issuing bogus bills and were charging 0.5% commission on the same. Shri Anil Kumar Lalwani, of Johari B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k account of the assessee. Copies of bank statement are filed. It was submitted that all transactions of purchases are carried out through documentary evidences, therefore actual purchases have been made. Therefore, there is no unaccounted purchases. The A.O. however, in view of the report of Jaipur Investigation Wing considered the entire purchases made by assessee from his unaccounted money/undisclosed source and made the addition of ₹ 22,00,016/-. 5. The assessee challenged the addition before the Ld. CIT(A) and same submissions were reiterated. It was also submitted that A.O. has drawn adverse inference on the basis of ex-parte statements of the sellers, when the entire transaction stands corrobor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verse material was supplied to assessee, therefore, such evidences cannot be used in evidence against the assessee. He has submitted that in the absence of any independent corroboration to the ex-parte material, no addition could be made. Since all the transactions have been disclosed to the Trade Tax Authorities, therefore, no addition could be made against the assessee. In support of the same, he has relied upon certain decisions, copies of which are filed in the paper book. In the alternate contention, he has submitted that at the most profit element embedded in the alleged purchases should have only be added, therefore, entire addition is liable to be deleted. 7. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not been confronted to assessee and no right of rebuttal have been given to such material, such material cannot be used against the assessee. We rely upon Judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chelaram 125 ITR 713 (SC). Since statement of Shri Anil Kumar Lalwani was recorded by Investigation Wing, Jaipur was also not provided to the assessee and no cross-examination have been allowed to his statement on behalf of assessee, therefore, such statement can also be not read in evidence against the assessee. We rely upon Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries [2015] 281 CTR 214 (SC). There is no other adverse material against the assessee on record, therefore, there were no justific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... All the details are filed in the paper book from pages 17 to 67. Considering these facts, we are of the view that there was no justification to consider the purchases made by the assessee to be bogus purchases. We, accordingly, set aside the Orders of the authorities below and delete the addition of ₹ 17,45,000/-. Ground of appeal of assessee allowed. 9. In the result, ITA.No.3521/Del./2010 of the assessee allowed. ITA.No.2819/Del./2014 A.Y. 2007-2008 : 10. This appeal by assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-XIX, New Delhi, Dated 14.03.2014, for the A.Y. 2007-2008, challenging the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
