9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other transaction of same amount with the impugned party. Similarly, the payment received by assessee against sale is not doubted. Book result of assessee was of the Act even touched by the AO. Thus AO made addition by blind eyes. We find that before the CIT(A), the assessee reiterated his similar contention as raised before the AO. CIT(A) allowed relief to the assessee by holding that AO has not discharged his onus of disproving the transaction of sale by assessee with Keshav Impex. AO neither referred the statement of proprietor of Keshav Impex wherein he has allegedly mentioned the name of the assessee as a beneficiary of bogus transaction nor brought any cogent evidence on record to controvert the document filed by the assessee. AO made addition of bogus purchases, no comments were made on the nature of sales made by assessee. Books of account of assessee was not rejected nor recasted the trading result. The assessee has produced the record of purchases and sales, VAT has been duly paid, sales tax assessment has been completed and input credits were also allowed in favour of assessee. We find that the ld. CIT(A) allowed full relief to the assessee by appreciating the facts in r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal, the assessee filed his Cross Objection raising following grounds: 1. On the facts circumstances of the case and law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening of the assessment u/s 148 which is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. The respondent craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify or delete any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of diamonds, filed his return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 30/09/2012 declaring total income of Rs. 9,90,170/-. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny. Assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) on 18/03/2015 determining income at Rs. 16,77,080/-. Subsequently, the case of assessee was reopened on the basis of information received from ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Surat vide his letter dated 25/03/2019. As per information, the case of one Anil Chokhara, Proprietor of Keshav Impex, information was received from ADIT (Inv.), Mumbai that Anil Chokhara was not doing any business. He was engaged in the activity of providing accommodation entry to various beneficiaries. The assessee was one of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition can be made when quantity is tallied. Reply of assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer retreated that the assessee made purchases from non-genuine supplier Keshav Impex of Rs. 5.04 crores, who is engaged in providing accommodation entry. The Assessing Officer held that in absence of any explanation, the assessee failed to furnish verifiable evidence. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 4.04 crores on account of unaccounted bogus purchases in the assessment order dated 18/11/2019 passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee challenged the validity of reopening and addition on merit. The assessee furnished detailed written submission alongwith dates and events. Submissions of assessee is recorded on page No. 4 to 43 of order of ld. CIT(A). The assessee against reopening, submitted that the reopening is not justified as the assessee has not made purchases rather have made sales to Keshav Impex. Assessment was reopened only on the basis of information from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai. Copy of material inform ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s made by assessee. Books of account of assessee was not rejected nor recasted the trading result. The assessee has produced the record of purchases and sales, VAT has been duly paid, sales tax assessment has been completed and input credits were also allowed in favour of assessee. On the basis of aforesaid observation, the ld. CIT(A) allowed full relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the revenue has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. On service of grounds of appeal/memo of appeal of revenue, the assessee has filed his cross objection challenging the validity of reassessment. 6. We have heard the submissions of learned Commissioner of Income Tax- Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue and the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and have perused the orders of the lower authorities carefully. The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue supported the order of Assessing Officer and would submit that the assessee is the beneficiary of accommodation entry of purchases as has been held by Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) allowed full relief to the assessee by accepting the contention of assessee. The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old goods to them. The Assessing officer remained silent on such objection. The assessee furnished sales register, payment register and stock register. No comments on such evidences were made by Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer reiterated his contention of purchases from alleged entry provider while making addition despite recording the facts stated by the assessee about the sales with the impugned party. The statement of such party or report of Investigation Wing nowhere mentioned in the assessment order. We find that the sale of assessee to the impugned party was not disputed. The assessing Officer has not brought any evidence to show that assessee had any other transaction of same amount with the impugned party. Similarly, the payment received by assessee against sale is not doubted. Book result of assessee was of the Act even touched by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing officer made addition by blind eyes. 9. We find that before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee reiterated his similar contention as raised before the Assessing officer. The ld. CIT(A) allowed relief to the assessee by holding that Assessing Officer has not discharged his onus of disproving the transaction o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
