Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2021 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 21 - HC - Income TaxBogus purchases - in making the addition AO has primarily relied upon some information received from the office of the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Mumbai regarding bogus purchases - notice issued to these three parties under Section 133 (6) of the Act remained unserved because they are not available/traceable - ITAT deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- ITAT has on facts came to a conclusion that respondent has filed before the Assessing Officer complete books of accounts, items wise stock register evidencing the receipts of gift materials and issue thereof. ITAT has also accepted the photographs of the functions and promotional activities and confirmations from the shop keepers. What really tilted the opinion of ITAT in favour of respondent is that respondent had produced copies of bank statements of Punjab National Bank and Axis Bank evidencing the payments through banking channels by account payee cheques to the suppliers. Nothing in the order of the AO that the Assessing Officer has looked into or considered this fact dispassionately. The ITAT, therefore, came to a conclusion that respondent has discharged its onus by producing the books of accounts, stock register, stock tally and also filed various documentary evidences such as statements of banks. According to ITAT, once respondent has discharged this burden, the onus shifts to the Revenue and the AO has not conducted any independent inquiry or further verification of the records produced before him. We have to note that this view of ITAT has not even been challenged and no substantial question of law has been proposed. Admittedly the three parties are private limited companies. Assessing Officer does not mention anywhere to which address the notice under Section 133 (6) of the Act was sent because being a company, certainly the records in the office of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs or the Registrar of Companies will indicate the address of the registered office of these three entities. AO only says the notices remained unserved because companies are not available/traceable. That is neither here nor there because the Assessing Officer should have stated why the notices were not served - Was it because of any endorsement by the postal authorities that there was no such company in existence at the address mentioned or intimation posted but not collected or refused. Another point we have to note is that the Director of these three companies, on whose notarised affidavit cum declaration the Assessing Officer was relying upon, was not even made available for cross examination. - Decided against revenue.
|