Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 2153 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of bogus purchase - Maharashtra State Sales Tax / VAT department had found all the parties in issue to have been engaged in giving purchase entries to their respective suppliers - HELD THAT:- This tribunal’s co-ordinate bench’s decision in ITO vs. Paresh Arvind Gandhi [2015 (7) TMI 362 - ITAT MUMBAI] holds purchase made from most of the parties in issue as genuine in view of the corresponding details submitted at the concerned assessee’s behest. Case file(s) suggest that the department has also not furnished the relevant materials information as well as the alleged admissions if any of the party in issue to the assessee. We further notice that this assessee is engaged in iron and steel trade business. As filed all the relevant evidence(s) in the nature of purchase bills, delivery challan, weigh bridge certificates, transportation details, cheque payments to suppliers as well as transporters, TDS deduction certificates, stock register, steel bills and bank statement in support of the impugned purchases claims right from assessment till the instant second appeal proceedings. All the said details have nowhere been rebutted at the AO’s end. Revenue fails to dispute the clinching fact that the assessee’s corresponding sales have already been accepted as correct. We therefore see no reason to restore the impugned bogus purchase disallowance canvassed in Revenue’s former appeal. 10% ad hoc estimated disallowance by comparing the corresponding figures of the impugned assessment year vis-a-vis preceding assessment year - HELD THAT:- We afforded ample opportunities to the learned departmental representative for pin-pointing any specific defect; head-wise in the impugned claims comprising of clearing charges, computer repair, container rent, custom duty, CWC charge, DEPB premium, doc clearing charges, interest paid, service and testing charges and TDSC transportation charges alongwith other heads. There is no such discussion on the assessment order pointing out any such defect in all these specific heads. AO had not put even a single head to factual verification from recipient side as well. We conclude in these facts that the CIT(A) has rightly concluded that the impugned disallowance merely based on comparison of relevant figures in the two assessment years is not sustainable. Addition of unexplained cash deposits addition - HELD THAT:- CIT(A)’s findings in his order under challenge hold that the assessee had filed its ledger account as well as cash flow statement indicating re-deposit of cash sums already withdrawn. AO’s remand report as well not disputing all these clinching supporting evidence. We therefore reject Revenue’s instant second substantive ground as well as the latter main appeal
|