Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 1207 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Bogus purchases and commission payment - notice u/s 133(6) was issued for confirmation of the parties and that no confirmation, bank account and income tax return from all parties were furnished - HELD THAT:- We find that during the assessment, AO vide his specific notice dated 24.06.2016, called the record of purchases as well as commission expenses. The assessee vide its reply dated 08.07.2016, furnished complete details about the purchases as well as commission payment. We find that the reply of assessee in response to show cause notices of purchases and commission payment is duly acknowledged by AO. As recorded above, the AO has not made any reference about such enquiries or reply received by him on both the issues. We find that in reply to show cause notice, the assessee filed details reply, inter alia contending therein that the purchases from the parties are genuine. Assessee furnished bank statement, tax invoices and leger account of the parties. Similarly, for the commission expenses, the assessee furnished the details of both the parties. We find that out of four parties, three parties are located at distant places. CIT has not disputed the existence of the parties, nor the payment against the purchases or the commissions paid or the evidences filed by the assessee to substantiate the purchases or commissions paid is bogus. When commission was paid through account payee cheques on account of sales canvassed by the parties, was not bogus payment. Considering the legal view taken on commission payment and the expenses incurred on purchased and coupled with the facts that the assessing officer during the assessing made sufficient inquires and took a reasonable view on both the issue, so view taken/ adopted by the assessing officer cannot be considered as erroneous view. Once the assessing officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the assessing officer is unsustainable in law. Hence, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.
|