9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 797X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, the appellate authorities after considering various evidences and material brought before them have held that the transactions relating to purchase and sales of computer software are genuine. In this context, we may refer to a number of decisions of the Tribunal cited before us by the learned Authorised Representative. Order of CIT(A) sustained - Decided against the revenue. - ITA no.7442, 7443 & 7444/Mum./2017 - - - Dated:- 9-8-2019 - Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member And Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal For the Revenue : Shri Awungshi Gimson a/w Shri Neil Philip ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M. Captioned appeals by the Revenue are against three separate orders, all dated 4th October 2017, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 8, Mumbai, for the assessment years 2007 08 and 2008 09. 2. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee, involving common issues and arising out of identical set of facts and circumstances, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt by DSTPL. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid facts and information available with him, the Assessing Officer ultimately concluded that the transaction relating to purchase of computer software from DSTPL amounting to ₹ 5,28,44,480, is bogus, hence, added back to the income of the assessee as unexplained purchases. The assessee challenged the aforesaid addition before the first appellate authority. 4. After considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of the facts and material on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals) found that while deciding identical issue in assessee s own case in assessment year 2006 07, he has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, relying upon the said decision, he deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer. He submitted, as per the information received from CBI, it was found that the Directors of the assessee company have created other dummy companies through which bogus transactions in purchase and sale of computer software was being carried on. Thus, he submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chaser, the present assessee. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, similar addition made by the Assessing Officer in case of various other group companies purely on the basis of information received from the CBI has been deleted by the Tribunal. In this context, he drew our attention to the following orders of the Tribunal. i) ITO v/s Shri Harsh Dalmia, ITA no.7459/Mum./2016, dated 17.10.2017; ii) ITO v/s Artlink Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., ITA no.1121/Kol./2016, etc., dated 14.09.2018; iii) Mahan Industries Ltd. v/s DCIT, ITA no.146/Mum./2016, dated 28.02.2018; iv) DCIT v/s Udipur Properties Finance Ltd., ITA no.6449/Mum./2017, dated 09.11.2018; and v) Venktesh Securities Ltd. v/s ITO, ITA no.1498 TO 1501/Mum./2017, dated 21.12.2018. 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative. Undisputedly, on the basis of information received from CBI/ACB, the Assessing Officer has concluded that the transaction relating to purchase of software from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accepted the sales to be genuine. The Tribunal also has upheld the aforesaid decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding Revenue s appeals in ITA no.4399 to 4403/Mum./2014, dated 7th July 2017. On a perusal of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, we find that relying upon identical information received from the CBI and ACB, the Assessing Officer had concluded that the sales effected by DSTPL to different entities including the present assessee are not genuine. However, the Tribunal ultimately agreed with learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the sales effected by the DSTPL are genuine. Thus, by virtue of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, it is factually established that the sales effected by the DSTPL to different parties are genuine. If in case of DSTPL, the sales effected are accepted as genuine, the same cannot be treated as bogus in case of assessee as they like two sides of the same coin. That being the case, the purchases effected from DSTPL by the assessee cannot be held as bogus. Further, the allegation made by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has not furnished various evidences including VAT payment does not appears to be correct as the material p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
