Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2006 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (12) TMI 184 - ITAT JODHPURAddition u/s 69 - Income From Undisclosed Sources - bogus purchase - income from purchase and sale of agricultural produce and also from 'Arhat' - HELD THAT:- It is hardly a case of unexplained investment. The assessee has clearly shown and explained the alleged investment. In case the seller did not pay sales-tax and Mandi tax. the purchase in question cannot be taken as bogus. There are hundred and one reasons for the seller to tell untrue facts and unless the seller is confronted with by the assessee, the alleged statements do not have any useful meaning. The AO took the purchases made by the assessee from these parties as fictitious and bogus mainly on. the strength of the affidavits of these parties tendered before sales-tax authorities. These affidavits and even statement of the asstt. manager of the bank were never the subject-matter of cross-examination by the assessee. In these circumstances, the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT [1980 (9) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] and in the case of Tin Box Co. vs. CIT [2001 (2) TMI 13 - SUPREME COURT] come to the rescue of the assessee. The Hon'ble apex Court in these decisions have categorically held that unless the contents of the affidavits, etc. are confronted with the assessee by giving opportunity at cross-examination, the same cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. Thus, it is clear that the purchase in question cannot be held to be bogus. As a result, the impugned addition stands deleted. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
|