9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade, appears to be on wrong assumption of facts, hence, not tenable. We hold that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed cannot be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue.That being the case, exercise of power under section 263 of the Act to revise the assessment order is neither justified nor valid. Accordingly, we are inclined to quash the impugned order passed by learned Principal Commissioner under section 263 of the Act. Ground raised by the assessee is allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Officer called upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of purchases of ₹ 4,13,91,177. In response to the query raised by the Assessing Officer, the assessee furnished certain documentary evidences. However, the Assessing Officer was not fully convinced with the evidences furnished by the assessee. Therefore, he wanted to independently ascertain the genuineness of purchases by conducting enquiry himself. Accordingly, he issued notices under section 133(6) of the Act to the concerned parties. However, all such notices returned back unserved. Thus, ultimately, the Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of purchases. However, relying upon certain judicial precedents including the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to be bogus, 100% addition should be made. Accordingly, he set aside the assessment order with certain directions. 6. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, purely on the basis of information obtained from the Sales Tax Department the purchases made by the assessee were treated as bogus. He submitted, in the course of assessment proceedings Assessing Officer had enquired into the purchases made and the assessee had produced evidences to prove the genuineness of purchases. Further, the Assessing Officer had conducted enquiry independently to verify the genuineness of the purchases. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order overlooking the information available with him. The learned A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. Undisputedly, in assessee's case originally the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act. However, subsequently, on the basis of information received by the Department from the Sales Tax Authorities indicating that certain parties from whom the assessee claimed to have made purchases have been identified as hawala operator by the Sales Tax Department, the Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment under section 147 of the Act. During the re-assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to furnish supporting evidences to prove the purchases. It is evident, in response to the query raised by the Assessing Officer, the assessee did produce som ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ource i.e., the Sales Tax Department. Even otherwise also, no fault can be found with the Assessing Officer in making addition by estimating profit on the non-genuine purchases, as the same view has been expressed in various judicial precedents rendered in similar nature of dispute including the decisions of the Tribunal and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. In fact, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. (supra) has held that even if the purchases are found to be bogus, however, the entire purchases cannot be added if the sales are not doubted or disputed. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held that in such circumstances, the addition can be made by applying the gross profit rate of normal pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
