9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact that the assessee has submitted the bills, delivery challan, stock register etc., pertaining to the alleged bogus transaction - AO also acknowledges the fact that the assessee has submitted the ledger copy of M/s. Giriraj Enterprises, Bank statements, party confirmation etc. - We also notice that the AO is not disputing the fact that the goods bought through alleged bogus transactions have been sold as reflected in audited financial statements. We further notice that the AO has not recorded any adverse findings with regard to the documents submitted by the assessee with regard to the alleged bogus transactions. We further notice that the AO has recorded in the assessment order that the input credit on the alleged bogus purchases has n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PADMAVATHY S, AM: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short 'the CIT(A)'] dated 14.02.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeals: Ground No.1: Invalid Reopening of Completed Assessment U/Sec 147: 1.1 The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax -(Appeals)-NFAC, erred in upholding the validity of Reopening of Assessment U/Sec 147. It is further submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of our case, the re-opening is unjust, unfair and bad-in-law. The re-opening should be deleted. 1.2 The Income Tax Officer 18(1)(1) Mumbai has re-opened the assessment on the basis of information rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent entries in bank statement, corresponding sales, stock register, etc. iv. Sales Tax Department has not declared M/s Giriraj Enterprises (Prop Harish Chandak) as a Hawala Dealer v. On receipt of 133(6) notice for Asst Yr 2010-11 in the assessee's own case Mr Harish Chandak had appeared before the Learned A.O ward 18(1)(1) on 11.12.2017 and stated in his Cross Examination that he had supplied goods to the assessee from his Bhivandi Godown and had received payments thru cheque and had never given any cash to the assessee. Ground No.3: Misinterpretation of ITAT Order: Income Tax Officer 18(1)(1) Mumbai has erroneously taken business income as Rs 11,35,912 adding Rs 15,32,997 misinterpreting the benefit provided by Honorable ITAT in order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16 along with MA dated 06.03.2018. 3. Subsequently the assessee's case was once again reopened by issue of notice under section 148. As per the reasons recorded, it was reported that information has received from DDIT(Inv.) that as per interim result of their enquiry on M/s Giriraj Enterprises, the proprietor Mr. Harish K. Chandak has admitted on providing accommodation entry and since the assessee has entered into certain transactions with M/s Giriraj Enterprises the AO reopened the assessment. The assessee filed detailed objections before the AO against the re-opening. The assessee also filed the order of the CIT(A) in the case of Mr. Harish K. Chandak where all sales transactions of Giriraj Enterprises has been accepted as genuine. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of M/s. Giriraj Enterprises dated 12-3-2015 for the AY. 2009- 10, where the CIT(A) had given the finding that the sales of the Mr. Harish K. Chandak is genuine, (Page 65 para. 2.4 of PB). Therefore the ld AR argued that when the sales are held as genuine, the AO in assessee's case is not correct in holding the purchases as not genuine. 5. The ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 6. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The assessee's case was first reopened for the reason that the assessee has entered into certain bogus transactions and the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. section 147 was completed wherein the AO made addition of Rs. 9,35,988/- under section 69C of the Act. The said addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents submitted by the assessee with regard to the alleged bogus transactions. We further notice that the AO has recorded in the assessment order that the input credit on the alleged bogus purchases has not been denied and that the supplier has not been named as the hawala party. The AO is making the addition for the reason that the party has admitted having entered into bogus transaction and that the assessee has not produced the parties. During the course of hearing the ld AR drew our attention to the statement of oath recorded from Mr. Harish Chandak, to submit that he has not mentioned having entered into any bogus transactions with the assessee (Page 78 to 84 of paper book). We notice that during cross examination by the assessee&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
