9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (7) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 5984 dt. 7th Dec., 1974. In this notice, the AO pointed out that the appellant has claimed deduction in respect of purchases made buy the following 8 registered dealers during the year 1973-74. 1. 1. Trinath Bhandar Bhairpur, CU II.3472 (Prop. Laxmidhar Sahoo, son of Ramchandra Sahoo of vill : Bhairpur, P.S. Salepur) 2. 2. Shankar Store Maharapada, P.U. I.521 (Prop. Shri Maheswar Parida son of Late Mohan Parida of vill. Telgadapatna doing business at Naharpada, PS. Brahmagiri, dist. Puri) 3. 3. M.s Jharondar Das, Badasankha, PUI. 1727 (He is of village Remachandrapur P.O. Bhingarapur, P.S. Balianta of district Puri and was carrying his business at Badasankha but he shifted his place of business to Atharanalapatna, P.O. Govindpur, dist. Puri w.e.f. 27th Nov.,.1973 and got his registration certificate amended w.e.f. 27th Nov., 1973) 4. 4. Binapani Store, Mahidharpada, CU. II. 3514 (Prop: Harihar Mohanty, son of Krushna Chandra Mohanty of vill. Mahidharpada, Cuttack. 5. 5. Balajee Traders, Ranihat, CU. I.E. 1891 (Proper: Sudhir Chandra Parida son of Duryodhan Parida of vill. Biridi, district Cuttack carrying on business at Ranihat) 6. 6. Neelakhanta Store, Machhaga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsons who are carrying business and have denied to made purchase, it was urged that, unless a copy of the statement given by the dealer denying the purchase is given, the assessee is not in a position to furnish any reply on the point. He has to ascertain as to under what circumstances, such a statement has been given by the said dealer." With these assertions; he expressed his inability to produce the dealer who granted registration certificate. After this, the AO issued summons to those dealers by post and as service could not be effected through post, the AO in his letter No. 3722 dt. 5th Aug., 1975 sent 14 summons to be served on the persons those who granted declarations in pursuance of purchases made from the assessee. The 14 dealers for whom summons were issued are as follows: 1. Madhabananda Das, Mansinghpatna, 2. Kailash Chandra Patra, Malgodown, 3. Alok Pratishthan, Badambadi, 4. Kalpana Store, Brahmagiri 5. Khatrabasi Nayak, Puri 6. Nilakantha Store, Machagaon, 7. Balaji Trades, Ranihat 8. Jharendra Das, Badasankha, 9. Sankar Store, Naharpada, 10. Binapani Store, Mahidharpatna, 11. Trinath Bhandar, Bhairpur, 12. Ganesh Store, Nimapada 13. Bayalismouza Store ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Harihar Mohanty, Prop. of Binapani Store, Mahidharapada registration number CU. II. 3414. In consideration all these evidence placed by the assessee over and above the declaration forms granted by the purchasers, the learned AO, disallowed the following claim of the assessee in respect of the year 1971-72. Sl. No. Name of the dealer R.C. No. Amount disallowed . . . Rs. 1. Alok Pratishthan CU.I.W. 1386 5,72,920.59 2. Alaka Bhandar CU. II. 3423 6,55,613.78 3. Ganesh Store CU.II. 657 5,44,973.29 4. Bayalish Mouza Store CU.II(S) 201 15,987.82 5. Anam Charan Mohanty CU.II(J) 34 31,884.05 6. Madhabananda Das CU.I.W. 445 37,079.06 7. Nilamani Rout CU.I.W. 836 47,500.50 . . Total 19,05,959.03 It may be pointed out that the AO in respect of this year in the calculation sheet has shown that he has disallowed deduction to the tune of Rs. 19,15,959.21. Here, as it appears that he has estimated Rs. 10,000 more than the actual figure. After verifying the check sheet, I find that while making total calculation of disallowance far the quarter 31st March, 1972, he has totalled it at Rs. 12,03,650.22, which should be Rs. 11,93,650.22. Hence the wrong calcula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt after referring to the case reported in 16 STC page 25 and 25 STC page 83, observed follows: "In the instant case, the appellant produced declaration from different registered dealers which in the opinion of the learned AO either did not exist or gave false declaration or did not purchase from the appellant. But the appellant produced declarations claiming exemption. Since the genuineness of the declarations were doubtful, the Department caused enquiry in different places and came to know that alleged sale did not take place. So, the production of the declaration though a strong presumptive evidence in support of claim of deduction, is not conclusive, for which it was opened to the AO to rebut the presumption. As per the decision of the Orissa High Court reported in 25 STC page 38, the burden is always on the assessee to prove that declaration on which he relies are genuine ones. Since the genuineness of the declaration in the instant case was doubtful, the burden lies on the appellant to prove that the declaration on which he relied are genuine ones. There is no dispute that the appellant made sales to alleged 7 or 8 dealers which in the opinion of the Department either did no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce the said direction has been given by the Hon'ble Court in another case, the direction to serve the summons on the purchasing dealers and cause their production before the AO was perfectly within the competency of the learned AO. Enquiry conducted shows that on 1971-72 Alok Pratishthan, Alaka Bhandar and Ganesh Stores, never existed at the address in such name. So also Madhbananda Das and Nilamani Rout who did not exist. Similarly in 1972-73 and 1973-74, Trinath Bhandar did not exist, under the proprietorship of Laxmidhar Sadhu. Alok Pratisthan is a bogus registered dealer having no business. Maheswar Parida, the properietor of Sankar Store denied his purchase, Biswanath Sen closed his business since 1966, Balaram Behera did not do any business in grocery article, no business run in the name of Ganesh Store and Epari Laxman Patra, proprietor of Balajee Traders, admitted that he had given false declaration though runs no business. There are similar findings in respect of other purchasing dealers who were found not to have purchased the alleged goods as claimed. In the case reported in 16 STC page 271, it has been held that the ST Authorities have no jurisdiction to grant registra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve insisted that as the appellant has effected sale, he must prove those sales. That approach is completely wrong in view of the provisions of the Orissa ST Act specially when the Department has not placed materials to show that registration certificate those were issued in favour of the purchasers were not in accordance with law. In that view the entire assessment is wrong and it must be annulled. He lastly urged that, as the assessee has proved his claim of deductions in respect of the all his cases, it must be accepted and the extra demand made and penalty imposed be annulled. 6. The learned State Representative who appeared for the Revenue, very strongly urged that, a look to the records will go to show that the appellant had very heavy dealings with the aforesaid purchasers. He being a wholesaler and making such heavy dealings, he is expected to know their whereabouts and that is why the AO gave all opportunity to the appellant to produce the purchasers. But inspite of opportunity and inspite of the fact that the AO gave all informations that he collected about the purchasers to the assessee and called upon the assessee to rebut them, the assessee remained silent. In view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld not be said that the receipt of this information would not entitle the assessing authority to frame the reassessment in order to prevent loss of Revenue. The information entitling the assessing authority to frame reassessment include information on points of fact and on points of law. With these observations. I overrule the first contention advanced by the counsel." These observations will apply mutatis mutandis to the present case. In that view, the objection raised by the assessee that the assessments should not have been reopened under s. 12(8), must be rejected. 8. Thereafter, the law on the point of proving the deduction claimed on account of sales to registered dealers need be first formulated to appreciate the question raised in this proceeding. In this connection, I shall first place the observations of the Supreme Court regarding this matter in The State of Madras vs. Radio Electricals (18 STC 222). The relevant portion of the observations are as follows: "Indisputably the seller could have in this transaction no control over the purchaser. He must rely upon the representation made to him. He must satisfy himself that the purchaser is a registered dealer and the goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iness at all." This finding of Sri Sahu that certificates were obtained fraudulently and that they were obtained in the name of fictitious person, was not challenged before the Tribunal and on this disputed fact, the Tribunal held that declarations are not true declarations and disallowed the deduction. It is in this background, their Lordships proceeded and there was no reference to the High Court on the point whether the registration granted was fraudulent or not or it was issued to fictitious persons. The only point that was urged by both the parties that the appellant must produce declarations which must be true. But regarding that, the Hon'ble Court observed as follows: "Thus the "truth" of the declaration is limited strictly to what is actually entered in the purchasing dealer's certificate or registration, viz., the goods which he purchased have been specified in his certificate as being required for resale by him. What is required is that identity between the goods purchased and the goods specified in his certificate. The declaration need not say that the purchasing dealer really intends to resell the goods. All that he is required to do is merely to reproduce the contents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... topped from rebutting that presumption and proving by other evidence that the registration was not effected in accordance with law." It has been further held in the said case that: "…………initially the burden of proving the declaration is on the assessee and he may be said to have discharged that burden by saying that he sold the goods to a person holding a certificate of registration. It would then be for the Department to lead evidence to show that the holders of these certificates of registration were not registered dealers in the eye of law as defined in the Act." Therefore, in the Orissa decision also, the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court have been reiterated. From this it becomes clear that the selling dealer has initially to prove two things, namely, (i) that his purchaser was a registered dealer, (ii) secondly, that his purchaser was authorised in his registration certificate to make purchase. After these are proved, if it is the contention of the Revenue that, the registration certificate was obtained fraudulently, they are to establish this by adducing definite evidence to rebut the presumption of registration. This principle of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Orissa ST Act is concerned, is Ramprasad Tormal vs. State of Orissa (25 STC 38). The circumstances under which reference was made to the Hon'ble Court will be found from the following observations of their Lordships appearing at page 42 of the report. The relevant portion reads as follows: "If the purchasing dealers are fictitious persons in the sense that no such persons exist it follows that the declarations alleged to have been given by them can never be genuine. It is contended on behalf of the assessee that the finding of the Tribunal under point No. 1 that the purchasing dealers are fictitious persons is vitiated by reason of the fact that the burden to prove that they were genuine has been wrongly cast on the assessee. There is undoubtedly considerable force in this contention. But unfortunately, the assessee has allowed that finding to become final, inasmuch as the correctness of this finding has not been challenged in the present references. The relevant question suggested by the assessee to the Tribunal and which has been accepted by him assumes that the purchasing dealers are genuine persons and the question posed for reference is whether declarations given by such pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w that the AO disallowed the deduction on account of the following reasons: (a) There is suspicion about the genuineness and integrity of the transactions which were comparatively heavy. (b) The purchasing dealers are said to have left business. (c) Registration certificate of purchasers have since been cancelled. The appellate officer did not accept this findings. According to him, the AO has disallowed the claim of presumption and suspicion. As in none of these cases, the registration certificate has been cancelled by notification, he reversed the finding regarding the genuineness and integrity of the transaction and purchases made by them. Against the said order, the Board of Revenue recorded otherwise as follows: "(i) The declaration forms show that by and large individual transaction were of heavy amounts. (ii) The sales are all said to be in cash purchases by them being also in cash. (iii) The registration in all these 3 cases, except one, were cancelled within a few months." It is on these findings, the Board of Revenue, disallowed all the 30 deductions and reversed the decision of the appellate Court. It is against that decision, the appellant filed writs before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne on any such legal evidence." The above will go to show that even if payments are made in cash, even if the assessee could not show the existence of the purchaser, even if he does not adduce any evidence how the goods moved, then his deduction cannot be refused, unless it is established that he colluded in the matter of getting the fictitious persons registered and the registration was not in accordance with law and that he has not effected any sale. 14. The law in the matter of allowing deductions to the selling dealers, has also been considered by the Punjab High Court in the case Chand & Sons vs. The State of Punjab 30 STC 211 (Punj). In that case, the material collected behind the back of the assessee were considered and the finding of the AO was that, the purchasing dealer never transacted any business. It was held in that case as follows: "The principles that have to be considered as is the principle in the income-tax cases on the subject. In pari materia the principle of income-tax cases will be applied to the Sales Tax cases and the principles annunciated in Dhakeswari Cotton Mill's case reported in 26 (1954) ITR page 775 (SC) covered the cases in the ST Act. If the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 1959. (ii) Suffice is to say that persons with signed applications have got to approach the authorities concerned granting them certificates. A duty is cast upon the authorities at that stage to find out whether the application for such certificate is a genuine dealer or bogus person. It is manifest from the facts of the case that the authorities failed in their duty and granted certificates to persons who were not genuine dealers resulting in the cancellation of such certificates later. When a person produces a certificate granted by the authorities concerned which is genuine, the selling dealer is entitled to presume that the person producing genuine certificate is a registered dealer. (iii) No duty is cast upon the selling dealer under any provision of the Statute or rules or any general principles of law to make him embark upon an enquiry as to whether the holder of the genuine certificate is genuine or not. (iv) Production of a genuine certificate by a person before the selling dealer is sufficient for the latter to believe signed by or on behalf of the person mentioned as registered dealer in the certificate was a true declaration. Law will presume that the declaratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the appellant and they are as follows. 1. Alok Pratisthan, Badambadi, CU.I.W. 1386 2. Alaka Bhandar, Chhanchapada, Prop: S.N. Mohanty 3. Ganesh Store, CU. II(S) 657 4. Bayalish Mouza Store, CU. II(S) 201 5. Anam Charan Mohanty, CU. II (J) 34 6. Madhabananda Das, CU. I.W. 445, 7. Nilamani Rout, CU. I.W. 836. There are the 7 purchasing dealers who effected purchase during 1971-72. (i) As per the AO's finding, the registration number CU. I.W. 836 which according to the assessee was issued to Nilmani Rout, on verification it was found be not in existence in West Circle of Cuttack and the registration number 836 was not issued at all to Nilmani Rout. The assessee inspite. of being given opportunity, has not been able to produce any evidence to show that his purchaser Nilmani Rout was validly registered and had his registration number C.U.I.W. 836. In view of that, this disallowance made to the tune of Rs. 47,500.50 must stand. (ii) I shall than take up the case of Anam Charan Mohanty, CU. II(J)-34. According to the assessee this Anam Charan Mohanty has purchased to the tune of Rs. 31,884.05 during the year 1971-72. A look to the assessment order will go to show that the name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) I shall then take up the case of Alok Pratisthan. Here, the appellant has claimed deduction amounting to Rs. 5,72,920.53. The AO looked to these declarations with suspicion as they were of cash transactions. I have already said that simply because the transactions are in cash, they cannot be sufficient to reject them but other facts must be proved to reject the claim. In that view, that they were cash transactions is not of much consequence and at best they can only lead to suspicious background. But that alone is not sufficient to reject the claim. The assessee has not only produced declaration granted by Sri Bansidhar Mohapatra, but also produced the affidavit wherein this B.D. Mohapatra has asserted that he has made the purchases from Bijaya & Co. the assessee. Thus, here the assessee has led some evidence about the sales effected by him. As against that the AO observed as follows: "It was pointed out that Alok Pratisthan did not do any business. Reference to the file in West Circle indicates that he has never filed return not paid tax. It was further found that he was falsely giving bogus declaration collusively to wholesalers and was known to be selling declarations." From ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this it will be clear that the assessee has proved that his purchaser was validly registered dealer and his registration was effective on the date of the alleged purchase. Against that, the AO has recorded the following. "Enquiry conducted by the Intelligence Wing clearly indicated that Alaka Bhandar did not do any business at the given address." From this it becomes crystal clear that the claim has been disallowed as Alaka Bhandar was not doing any business at Chanchapada. This is all the evidence that the Revenue has collected to disallow the claim. But as I have stated, law has never cast any duty on the assessee to prove that his purchaser was really carrying on any business or not. As he has done his part to establish that his purchaser was a registered dealer and that his registration was valid and that he was authorised to make purchase, his (Appellant) claim to the tune of Rs. 6,55,613.78 must be allowed. (v) The 5th is in respect of Ganesh Bhandar. The assessee not only produced the declaration singed by Ganesh Chandra Naik, the properietor of Ganesh Store, but he also filed an affidavit sworn by Ganesh Chandra Naik, son of Krupasindhu Naik. In that affidavit, he has sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a fact that this Madhabananda Das is a registered dealer and his registration number is CU.I.W. 445. As per the findings of the AO, "enquiries revealed that at the given address, it was found out that no business establishment in the name and style of Madhabananda Das ever existed at Mansinghpatna. "this finding itself is not sufficient to disallow the claim of the appellant when it has been found as a fact that Madhabananda Das was a registered dealer and he issued declarations in support of his purchases from the assessee. Hence this claim amounting to Rs. 37,070.06 must be allowed. To sum up the above discussion, I record the following finding: (a) The claim of deduction by the assessee in respect of the asst. yr. 1971-72 be allowed in respect of the following claims, the details of which are as follows: 1. Alok Pratisthan Rs. 3,72,920.53 2. Alaka Bhandar Rs. 6,55,613.78 3. Ganesh Store Rs. 5,44,973.29 4. Bayalish Mouza Store Rs. 15,987.52 5. Madhabananda Das Rs. 37,079.06 . . Rs. 18,26,574.48 (b) The assessee's claim of deduction amounting to Rs. 47,500.50 in respect of sales effected the Nilamani Rout (CU.I.W. 836) which was disallwed by the AO, stands con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Laxmidhar Sahoo even did any business at Bhairpur under the name any style of Trinath Bhandar." The learned Advocate very much emphasised that the Department has issued registration certificate and he has effected sale and his responsibility ends there. But the AO further remarked that "supposing the Department acted on some body's misrepresentation which went underground after the registration certificate was issued, but the dealer has sold him in two years goods worth Rs. 30 lakhs of rupees, can he not atleast point out who is that man and where he is. With his two crosses annual turnover this is the first of his purchases. Hence how can a wholesaler deny knowledge about his most and highest retailers. Moreover, the manner of purchase of heavy amounts in cash strikes any body with wonder but it is wonder that dealer pleades that the case never struck him with any newness. The entire situations prove beyond doubt that complicity of the dealer in the matter." There are all high sounding words of the AO. But there is absolutely no material to come to a conclusion that this assessee colluded with said Trinath Bhandar either in the matter of procuring the registration certificate or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gnature of the declaration which is the most important feature of the declaration, the same may kindly be compared with the signature of the dealer in the specimen signature given in the application for registration. As regards your observation that no such man or place exists, the same gets contradicted by the Registration certificate issued by your honour's Department and the name as well as address of the dealer published in the official gazette by the CST, Orissa will go to show that all acts were done in pursuance of law. The assessee who sells the goods has nothing to doubt the genuineness of the certificate given by the Department. As such it is unfortunate to throw impossible burden on the assessee to substantiate his claim of deduction. It is requested that there being nothing to doubt the transaction and the signature of the purchasing dealer, the claim should be allowed. It was also asserted that the assessee cannot be put to loss and prejudice for the faults of the Department and his genuine claim of deduction cannot be rejected. The assessee is not expected to go to the place of the purchasing dealer to verify its existence. The assessee's duty is to see whether the pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is pointed out the AO that Balaram Behera has no business at Madhyasasana and he is a fictitious dealer. But the fact remains that he is living and that he is a registered dealer, is not disputed. In view of that and in view of the fact that the appellant produced declaration in support of his sales to Balaram Behera, his claim should not have been disallowed, simply because Balaram Behera had no business when found by the investigating officer of the Department. In that view his claim should be allowed." Replying on this, it was urged by the counsel for the appellant that sales made in favour of Balaram Behera should be allowed. Regarding this Balaram Behera, the AO's findings are as follows:-- "Enquiry at Madhyasasana reveals that there is one Balaram Behera, a poor fisherman who lives on fishing. But the wholesaler who have shown sales to him have evidently mainpulated to impersonate and get a registration certificate and then have misutilised the same for evasion. Balaram Behera has denied that he ever applied for registration certificate. The Advocate says that some body showed him a registration certificate in the name of Balaram Behera and they sold. But I am simply as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20. In the result, second appeal No. 187 of 1977-78 relating to the asst. yr. 1972-73 is allowed in part. The AO do recalculate the tax payable by the assessee in respect of the deductions claimed by effecting sales in favour of Biswanath Sen only and impose such tax as it payable under the law. The penalty imposed for this year be imposed proportionately with reference to the original assessment made. 21. Lastly, I shall take up the claim of deduction for the asst. yr. 1973-74, which is the subject-matter of second appeal No. 188 of 1977-78. The claims of the appellant are as follows: 1. Epari Laxman Patra, Batomohua Rs. 1,694.35 2. Trinath Bhandar Rs. 22,94,848.07 3. Balajee Traders Rs. 18,73,497.69 4. Binapani Store, Mahidharpada Rs. 12,51,667.03 5. Sankar Store Rs. 9,34,320.39 6. Jharendra Das, Badasankha Rs. 3,02,293.79 7. Kalpana Store, Brahmagiri, Rs. 39,283.15 8. Strikanta Bhandar, Bolangir Rs. 10,203.35 . . Rs. 67,07,8097.82 9. Majid Store (on account of sale suppression) Rs. 25,000.00 . . Rs. 67,32,807.82 (i) A look to the assessment order will go to show that the assessee has produced declaration issued by Epair Laxman Patra, bearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m Bijay & Co. But while deciding the claim of deduction of this dealer, the AO referred to the notice issued by him on 7th Dec., 1974. In the notice, this Balajee Traders figures as dealer No. 5. Against this the AO in the notice has made it clear that Sudhir Chandra Parida, proprietor of Balajee Traders denied to have gone to your shop, made purchase from you and made payments to you in pursuance of purchases. So it is clear that the declarations showed to me are not true declarations made against sales truly made. In response to this notice, the assessee in his reply asserted as follows: "As regards claim in respect of sales made to Balajee Traders vide serial No. 5, it is stated that, unless a copy of the statement given by the dealer denying the purchases, the assessee is not in a position to furnish any reply on the point. The assessee has to ascertain under what circumstances such a false statement has been given by the same dealer." In view of that, it was the bounden duty of the AO to give him a copy of it and give him opportunity rebut the same. But the AO was under the impression that, it is the duty of the assessee to produce that Sudhir Chandra Parida and as such he i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ahidharapada, P.S. Sadar. But that is none of the concern of the assessee. As he has proved that there is valid registration certificate in favour of Binapani Store, his deductions claimed must be allowed. As the Department has collected no information that the registration certificate issued is not in accordance with law, the claim must be allowed. (vii) I shall then take up the case of Jharendra Das, a dealer of Badasankh having registration number PU.I. 1727. In respect of this dealer, the appellant has claimed deductions amounting to Rs. 3,02,293.79. In support of this deduction, the appellant has not only produced, the declarations given by said Jharendra Das, but also an affidavit sworn by Sri Jharendra Das, son of late Dhaneswar Das resident of village Ramachandrapur, P.O. Bhingarpur, P.S. Balianta in the district of Puri. In the said affidavit, this Jharendra Das has stated that he as dealing in grocery articles and Kirana goods both in wholesale and retail basis. He has also asserted that he has made purchases to the tune of Rs. 3,02,293.79 from Bijay & Co. He has further stated that he has shifted his business from Badasankh to Athernalapatna, P.O. Gopinathpur, Dist. Pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd you may please cause production of him." In reply to this, the appellant has against asserted that your allegation that they do not exist is false as they are registered dealers. Here from the affidavit also, it transpires that Jharendra Das transferred his business from Badasankha to Athernalaptna. Even he is posted with these informations, the AO did not make further enquiry at Atharanalapatna to come to the conclusion that Jharendra Das is a fictitious person. Hence, on the available materials on record, I find that the assessee has proved very much that Jhardnera Das is a validly registered dealer and he is not fictitious man. It might be that he had no business at the locality. But, that is none of the business of the appellant. The AO should have collected information and should have proved that the registration certificate that was issued to Jharendra Das was not validly issued. It is only then the assessee could have been required to produce Jharendra Das. But that has not been done. Hence, in the circumstances of the case, I hold that the deduction claimed by the assessee on account of sales to Jharendra Das, need be allowed. (viii) Another amount of Rs. 25,030 has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
