TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts support – thus, there is no reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A) – Decided against Revenue. - I.T.A. No. 2392/AHD/2013 - - - Dated:- 30-5-2014 - Shri D. K. Tyagi, J.M. And Shri Anil Chaturvedi, A.M.,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Subhash Bains, CIT. D.R. For the Respondent : Shri S. N. Soparkar, A.R. Al. with Parin Shah, A.R. ORDER Per Shri Anil Chaturvedi,A.M. 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)-VIII, Ahmedabad dated 15.07.2013 for A.Y. 2010-2011. 2. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under. 3. Assessee is a company stated to be engaged in the business of Agro Processing and Agro Based Products. Assessee electronically filed his r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7/- made by Amber Trading to Assessee, goods worth Rs. 19,90,93,805/- were purchased by Amber Trading from registered dealers and the balance purchases of Rs. 9,31,09,522/- were from unregistered dealers. A.O also noted that Assessee did not produce the proprietor of Amber Trading for examination. He therefore held that Assessee had not brought any new evidence to prove the purchases. He also noted that similar additions were made in A.Y. 08-09 and A.Y. 09-10 by A.O but were deleted by CIT(A) but however Revenue had filed appeal before Tribunal which was yet to be decided. He accordingly, to maintain consistency made addition of Rs. 9,31,09,522/- (of the purchase by Amber Trading from unregistered dealers). Aggrieved by the order of A.O, As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observation of the A.O regarding non-production of the proprietor of Amber trading Co. it is noted that he did not issue any summons under section 131. The appellant was also not informed about nonproduction or non-attendance of the proprietor. The nature of URD purchases are also similar to earlier years. These facts clearly show that the facts are added exactly identical to earlier years and therefore, respectfully following the judgment of my predecessors and Honourable ITAT Ahmedabad, the disallowance of purchases made by the A.O is directed to be deleted. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before us. 6. Before us, the ld. D.R. relied on the order of A.O. On the other hand ld. A.R. submitted that on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chased by account payee cheque, and the appellant also produced all the necessary evidences to prove genuineness of the impugned purchases, after all such materials on records, there is no scope for AO to treat the purchases as non-genuine. Furthermore the Assessing Officer of the firm (M/s. Amber Trading Co.) treated the URD purchases of M/s. Amber Trading Co., Dahod as genuine, then there is no space left for imagination that the URD purchases of the supplier (M/s. Amber Trading Co.) are bogus. Accordingly, I direct the Assessing Officer to treat all such URD purchases as genuine and direct to delete addition of Rs.21,19,45,382/-. Ground No. 1 related to M/s. Amber Trading Co, Dahod is allowed. 3.8 Ld. D.R. supported the assessment or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the revenue's appeal is also rejected. 8. Against the order of Hon ble Tribunal, Revenue carried the matter before Hon ble Gujarat High Court. Hon ble Gujarat High Court in Tax Appeal No. 845/A/2013 order dated 10.02.2014 confirming the order of Tribunal decided the issue as under:- Questions (C) (D) pertain to purchases made by the assessee through one M/s. Amber Trading Company, Dahod. Assessing Officer disallowed the purchases on the ground that M/s. Amber Trading Company had made purchases from an unregistered dealer. He, in fact, doubted the purchases by M/s. Amber Trading Company itself. Learned counsel for the assessee would however correctly point out that CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal both noted that in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
