9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch there in the first round of litigation and could not find any support from the decision of the Hon'ble High Court when the Hon'ble High Court wanted the verification done through the Income tax returns of the two parties. Considering the report/order of the AO we are of the considered view that the assessee grossly failed in proving the genuineness of the transaction with M/s Mohit Trading Co. and M/s Surana Bros. Reliance placed on various judicial decisions will not do any good to the assessee as all the decisions are facts specific and the facts of the case in hand have been explained hereinabove, which are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the case relied upon by the ld. counsel for the assessee. Assessment order is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otal income of Rs. 6.25 crores. The Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs. 3,38,72,852/- in respect of certain purchases made by the respondent-assessee from Mohit Trading Company (amounting to Rs. 2.10 crores) and Surana Brothers (amounting to Rs. 1.28 crores). Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order, the respondent- assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), who by order dated 28.03.2013, has observed that both, during the course of assessment as well as remand proceedings, the enquiry letters issued to the aforesaid two parties, had been returned unserved and the assessee could not produce the said two identities before the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer and it was again brought on record that there was neither information regarding filing of return of income of the said party, i.e., Shri Chhaggan Lal Jain, Proprietor of M/s Mohit Trading Company M/s Surana Brothers, nor has been furnished by the said assessee. This information is vital for verification of purchases made by the assessee from the said party as per direction given by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Meerut in his order dated 28.03.2013. The aforesaid information was also provided to the respondent - assessee, but no contrary material was brought on record to show that the returns of income were filed by the said party and therefore, the purchase of Rs. 3,38,72,852/- was confirmed as non- genuine. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as a measure of abundant caution, the AO is directed to conduct enquiry with-the AO having jurisdiction over the PAN of this party and ascertain whether return of income had been filed for the relevant year by this party and if so, he had disclosed turnover of business in such return, in excess of the amount of purchases, shown by the assessee as having made from the said party. If the result of such verification is negative, the addition is confirmed. Otherwise, the AO is directed to delete the addition. 5. A perusal of the order of the Hon'ble High Court shows that the Hon'ble High Court was not pleased with the findings of the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court showed its displeasure in the Tribunal for not considering the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee as having made from the said party, if the result of such verification is negative the addition is confirmed, otherwise the AO is directed to delete the addition. In absence of any information regarding filing of the, return of income of the said party from the assessee as well as from the concerned Assessing Officer verification of the purchases made from the said party cannot be made as per the direction given by the CIT(A}, Meerut in his order dated 28.03.2013. In view of above facts, addition on account of purchases made by.the assessee company from the said party i.e. Shri Chhagan Lal Jain, Prop. M/s Mohit Trading Co and M.s Surana Bros amounting to Rs.3,38,72,852/- is confirmed as per the direction given by the ld. CIT(A), Mee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Writ Tax No. 163/2014 dated 13.03.2014 that the said parties, namely, M/s Mohit Trading Co. and also by M/s Surana Bros of whom Shri Chagganlal Jain was proprietor did not file any Income tax return for the impugned A.Y from which the turnover of those parties could have been verified. 11. Emphasis by the ld. counsel for the assessee that confirmations have been filed is not factually correct as the confirmations are from the side of the assessee itself who got its copy of ledger account confirmed from the said two parties whereas there is no confirmation from the books of account of the said two parties. The undisputed fact is that M/s Mohit Trading Co. and M/s Surana Bros of whom Shri Chagganlal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
