9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1759X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt stage has relied upon the statement of Shri Praveen Jain recorded under Section 132 (4) of the Act. It is on that basis that he called upon the appellant to prove the genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the deduction under Section 10AA of the Act. As regards the argument of the appellant for not providing him opportunity of cross examine Shri Praveen Jain, in the first place, the Assessing Officer himself required the appellant to produce representative of the concerned parties along with their books of accounts and he failed to produce them. Secondly, no such prayer was ever made by the appellant before the Assessing Officer to summon Shri Praveen Jain for his cross-examination. No substantial question of law X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the appeal preferred by the assessee against the de-novo assessment order, the CIT(A)-I, Jaipur vide its judgment dated 28.11.2013 passed in ITA No. 281/12-13 allowed the deductions of ₹ 3,49,54,100/- under Section 10AA of the Act, which was considered in the total income of the assessee by mistake in the re-assessment order. After rectification, the re-assessment order was finally passed for the total income of ₹ 52,36,460/-. Aggrieved by the re-assessment order dated 30.01.2015 as rectified vide order dated 27.02.2015 by which an income of ₹ 52,36,460/- was added against the non genuine purchase, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Jaipur [for short 'the CIT(A)'] who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 07.12.2015 by which the disallowance on the alleged bogus purchase of ₹ 2,09,45,850/- was restricted to only 15% in place of 25%. Being aggrieved by the order passed by CIT(A), the appellant preferred appeal before the Tribunal. Case of the appellant before the Tribunal was that reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act have been initiated by the Assessing Officer merely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and the bank statements which clearly established that the purchase was genuinely made by the assessee. The Tribunal has further failed to see that the purchase of rough material in the Gems Stones business is made through the broker and the firm rarely meets the supplier. Once the goods are finalized, the same are delivered by the broker and the payment is made to the concerned supplier firm through cheque and the relevant entries are made in the books of accounts. It is therefore prayed that present appeal be allowed and the substantial questions of law framed at Page 10 and 11 of the memo of the appeal may be answered in favour of the appellant-assessee. Learned counsel in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. M/s. Kelvinator of India Limited (Civil Appeal No. 2009-2011 of 2003 decided on 18.01.2010). Mr. Anuroop Singhi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Revenue opposed the appeal. Learned counsel citing the judgment of Calcutta High Court in Hindustan Tobacco Company Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2012) 77 DTR 0237 argued that in the present case no prejudice can be said to have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of ₹ 52,36,462/- (25% of the total purchase of ₹ 2,09,45,850/-). The CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance to the extent of 15% in view of the decision of ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Shri Anuj Kumar Varshney Vs. ITO and Others (ITA No. 187/JP/2012 dated 22.10.2014). Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are inclined to concur with the view taken by the Tribunal, which is based on the facts proved by statement of Shri Praveen Jain. The appellant despite being provided opportunity failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions and failed to produce the parties along with their books of accounts from whom such transactions were made to verify the same. Relied judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. M/s. Kelvinator of India Limited (Supra) does not offer any assistance to the appellant in the present case. It cannot be said that the Assessing Officer in the subsequent assessment order has arrived at a view that it has taken only on the basis of whatever material was available with him at the time of framing of initial assessment order. Indisputably, the Assessing Officer at the subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
