TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 935X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... information obtained from the Sales Tax Department and issuing notices under section 133(6) of the Act. As the Assessing Officer has failed to make any enquiry or investigation to prove the fact that the purchase transactions are not genuine whereas the assessee has brought documentary evidences on record to prove genuineness of such transactions which are not found to be fabricated or non-genuine, the action of the Assessing Officer in ignoring them cannot be accepted. Moreover, as rightly observed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), when the payment to the concerned parties are through proper banking channel and there is no evidence before the Assessing Officer that the payments made were again routed back to the assessee, the addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tails of such dealers are as under:- Name of Party TIN as per Sales Tax Amount of Purchase M/s. Bhavna Enterprise 27320697202V ₹ 2,92,074 J.M.D. Organics 27950702239V ₹ 9,57,549 Chemi Age Enterprise 27400387728V ₹ 46,45,264 TOTAL ₹ 58,94,887 To ascertain genuineness of such transactions, Assessing Officer issued notices under section 133(6) of the Act to the aforesaid three parties. As observed by the Assessing Officer, the postal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods submitted, as the evidences brought on record clearly prove the genuineness of the purchases made, the addition is not proper. He also submitted, the sales effected by the assessee have not been doubted by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the purchases made by the assessee could not have been held as bogus, as without such purchases, the assessee could not have effected sales. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), after considering the submissions of the assessee vis-a-vis facts and material on record, found that the Assessing Officer while treating the purchases effected by the assessee as bogus has mainly relied upon the information obtained from the Sales Tax Department. However, the assessee has submitted documentary evidences before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ledger copies of the concerned parties, but all other necessary evidences like purchase bills, delivery challans, etc., to prove the genuineness of the transactions, whereas, the Assessing Officer has not brought even a single piece of evidence, except the information obtained from the Sales Tax Department, to prove that purchases are not genuine. He submitted, on identical facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court as well as the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, has deleted the addition made under section 69C, in the following cases:- i) CIT v/s Nikunj Eximp Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (Bom.); ii) ACIT v/s Tarla R. Shah, ITA no.5295/Mum./2013, dated 2nd February 2016; and iii) Shri Harilal Chunilal J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on record to conclusively establish the fact that purchases are bogus. Merely relying upon the information from the Sales Tax Department or the fact that parties were not produced the Assessing Officer could not have treated the purchases as bogus and made addition. If the Assessing Officer had any doubt with regard to purchases made, it was incumbent upon him to make further investigation to ascertain the genuineness of the transactions. Without making any enquiry or investigation the Assessing Officer cannot sit back and make the addition by simply relying upon the information obtained from the Sales Tax Department and issuing notices under section 133(6) of the Act. As the Assessing Officer has failed to make any enquiry or investigatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
