9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 877X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firmation and supporting evidences, cannot be treated as bogus. Accordingly, we uphold the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) by dismissing the grounds raised by the Revenue. - ITA no.3110/Mum./2019 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) - - - Dated:- 25-9-2020 - SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Revenue by : Ms. Samatha M. Assessee by : None ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 10 th January 2019, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 45, Mumbai, pertaining to the assessment year 2009 10. 2. The dispute in the present appeal is confined to partial relief granted by learned Commissioner (Appeals) in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nishing any transportation bill or stock register. Further, he observed, before the Sales Tax Authorities the concerned parties have admitted that they were providing accommodation bills. In addition, the Assessing Officer observed that the notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act to the concerned parties seeking information regarding the purchases returned back unserved. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid observations, the Assessing Officer concluded that purchases worth ₹ 8,57,867, has to be disallowed as unexplained expenditure. Proceeding further, the Assessing Officer also went on to examine the genuineness of other purchases claimed to have been made during the year under consideration where the selling dealers have not b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivery challans, ledger account copy, bank statement showing payment etc. The only reason for which the Assessing Officer disallowed such purchases is, such parties have admitted before the Sales Tax authorities that they were providing accommodation bills and secondly, the assessee could not furnish the transportation bills. As regards purchases made from other parties who were not appearing as hawala operators in the list maintained by the Sales Tax Department, only because the notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act returned back un served and some documentary evidences could not be furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has treated them as bogus. However, it is not disputed that the sales effected by the assessee have no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
