TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overnment Department i.e. Defence Research and Development Laboratory, Hyderabad. Further, there were confirmation letters filed by the suppliers, copies of invoices for purchases as well as copies of bank statement all of which would indicate that the purchases were infact made. Merely because the suppliers have not appeared before the AO or the CIT(A), one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the assessee. Disallowance merely on the basis of suspicion because the sellers and the canvassing agents have not been produced before them is not warranted- thus the order of the Tribunal is well a reasoned order taking into account all the facts before concluding that the purchases of ₹ 1.33 crores was not bogus - in favour of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer interalia to the extent Rs.1.33 crores disallowed as bogus purchases. 5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.08.2004 of the CIT(A), the respondent-assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal in the impugned order dated 30.04.2010 while allowing the appeal records that the respondent-assessee had filed letters of confirmation of suppliers, copies of bank statement showing entries of payment through Account Payee cheques to the suppliers, copies of invoices for purchases and stock statement i.e. stock reconciliation statement. This reconciliation statement gave complete details with regard to opening stock, purchases, sales and closing stock and no fault with regard to it was foun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as well as copies of bank statement all of which would indicate that the purchases were infact made. In our view, merely because the suppliers have not appeared before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the respondent-assessee. The Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) have disallowed the deduction of Rs.1.33 crores on account of purchases merely on the basis of suspicion because the sellers and the canvassing agents have not been produced before them. We find that the order of the Tribunal is well a reasoned order taking into account all the facts before concluding that the purchases of Rs.1.33 crores was not bogus. No fault can be found with the order dated 30.04.2010 of the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
