9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding sales thereon and the profits derived thereon (which includes profit on disputed purchase and undisputed purchase) have already been disclosed by the assessee in the returns of income. Hence, we hold that the purchases made from five suppliers should be held as genuine. Purchase made from Anshika Jewellers - No adverse inferences were drawn on the aforesaid documentary evidence by the Revenue. When all these facts are staring on us, merely because the concerned supplier had not responded to the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act by the AO, the ld. AO was not justified in disbelieving the purchases made by the assessee. The assessee cannot be made responsible for producing the supplier in later years when transactions with the concerned supplier had been carried out in earlier years. In any case, non-production of a concerned supplier for examination by the assessee would not make the transaction ingenuine. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Orissa Corporation Ltd., [ 1986 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] There are other means to verify the existence of the said supplier by the Revenue in the manner known to law. The assessee had duly discharged its primar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rst Floor, Office No. 106, Saryu Chambers, Jadakhadi, Mahinderpura, Surat, Gujarat 25,74,990 2. M/s Chintamani Exports 12, Shakti Chambers, Raghunath Pura Main Road, Sural Gujarat 1,61,51,360 3. M/s Garima Exports 219, World Diamond Centre, Hathfalia, Mahidharpura, Surat, Gujarat 27,01,000 4. M/s Kushal Exports 103, Dev Sagar, Dalgiya Street, Near H.D.C, Mahidhra Pura, Surat, Gujarat 32,56,000 5. M/s Yogi Diamonds 12, Shakti Chambers, Raghunathpura Main Road, Sural, Gujarat 20,82,800 4. The assessee furnished the following details in respect of the aforesaid purchases to prove the genuineness of the same:- a) Ledger confirmation from the supplier; b) Return of income of the supplier; c) PAN of the supplier; d) Bank statement of the supplier in respect of M/s Dharam Impex and M/s Chintamani Exports; e) Certificate of Import-Export Code and Central Sales-tax Registration in respect of Dh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on account of the first five parties listed supra, was treated as bogus by the ld. AO based on the statements recorded from Shri Rajendra Jain and Surendra Jain u/s 132(4) of the Act during the course of their search u/s 132 of the Act. Further, DCIT, Central Circle-4, Surat had also submitted a report that all the premises of the suppliers were found to be closed on the Inspector s visit thereof. The assessee submitted before the ld. CIT(A) that a search was conducted in Surat during assessment year 2008-09 on certain parties which is five years before the transactions carried out by the assessee in AY 2013-14. Hence, the search reports of AY 2008-09 belonging to a third party in Surat cannot be utilized for framing assessment for AY 2013-14 in the hands of the assessee. The assessee refurnished the books of account for re-examination by the ld. AO in the remand proceedings. All the necessary details that were called for by the ld. AO in the remand proceedings were duly submitted before him. No discrepancies whatsoever were found by the ld. AO in the replies and documentary evidences filed by the assessee. All these persons whose statements were relied upon by the ld. AO were not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is evident from the remand report issued by the ld. AO before the ld. CIT(A) which is enclosed in pages 74-75 of the paper book. Admittedly, the entire purchases and sales are duly reflected in the books of account regularly maintained by the assessee. No defects whatsoever were found either in the books of account produced by the assessee or in the documentary evidences submitted by the assessee or in the replies filed by the suppliers in response to the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act directly before the ld. AO. When all these facts are staring on us, there is absolutely no scope of disbelieving the purchases made by the assessee from the five suppliers merely based on search statements recorded from certain third parties at Surat during the course of search conducted in AY 2008-09 which are absolutely not relevant for framing the assessment in the AY 2013-14 in the hands of the assessee. Hence, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) erred in bringing to tax the profit element of 19.84% on the value of disputed purchases. In fact, no addition could be made in these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in view of the fact that the purchases made by the assessee together with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
