TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 792X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or making the cash payment to the alleged purchasers to show that it was for the purposes of accommodation entries; secondly, the purchase bills were duly supported by GR Nos. and mode of delivery and; lastly, stock register reflected the consumption of material bought by the assessee. On these three counts, correctly held that the purchases cannot be said to be non-genuine. Deletion of addition on account of bogus purchases by the ld. CIT(A) is factually correct and no interference is called for. - Decided against revenue. Regarding violation of Rule 46A as raised by the department, we are of the opinion that, if the first appellate authority in exercise of his powers has directed the assessee to produce any evidence, information or mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at accommodation bills were issued by the various parties to the assessee, who was proprietor of M/s Baggit. The information stated that survey u/s 133A was conducted on 13.2.2009 in the cases of following person : i) Shri Rakeshkumar M Gupta, Propo.of M/s Manoj Mills; ii) Smt. Hema R Gupta of M/s Shree Ram Sales and Synthetics and iii) Shri Mohit R Gupta Prop. of M/s Astha Silk Industries; during which it was found that the above said persons were running the activities of issuing accommodation bills to various partiers in Mumbai and also tooutside parties. No trading or business activities were conducted by the assessee or by the group concerns. As per the statement given by Shri Rakeshkumar M Gupta, Prop.of M/s Manoj Mills, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anufacturing of bags. The manufacuring and sale has not been disputed. The AO recorded the statement of Shri Rakeshkumar M Gupta and held that the purchases shown by the assessee from these parties is bogus and accordingly he added a sum of ₹ 10,40,875/- to the total income of the assessee. 4. In the first appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) required the assessee to give evidence regarding the genuineness of purchases, proof of delivery, transport receipt etc. The details of purchases, proof of delivery, transport receipt etc have been incorporated by the ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order at para 7.6, which are reproduced hereinbelow : S.No. Name of the party Date of purchas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Manoj Muills 26/03/2002, Glitter stitch material 802, ₹ 92,800/- Delivery at shop 3201; 26.3.2002 8 Shree Ram Sales and Synthetics 25/09/2001, Glitter stitch material 326, ₹ 1,03,125/- Delivery at shop 1521;25.9.2001 9 Shree Ram Sales and Synthetics 06/11/2001 fancy Glitter fabric 376, ₹ 2,82,000/- Delivery at shop 2537;6.11.2001 10 Shree Ram Sales and Sy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le of the AO for proper examination and enquiry. 6. On the contrary, the ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that, first of all, the assessee had not produced any additional evidence but has produced the bills and GR numbers required by the ld. CIT(A) and also stock register. These documents were furnished by the assessee as required by the ld.CIT(A) to be produced before him and once any material or evidence has been produced at the behest and direction of ld.CIT(A), then the same does not constitute any additional evidence for the purpose of Rule 46A. Otherwise also in similar case, where purchases were made from the same parties, Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has deleted the addition. In support this contention, the ld. Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hdrawn from the bank account for making the cash payment to the alleged purchasers to show that it was for the purposes of accommodation entries; secondly, the purchase bills were duly supported by GR Nos. and mode of delivery and; lastly, stock register reflected the consumption of material bought by the assessee. On these three counts, he held that the purchases cannot be said to be non-genuine. It is further seen that the Tribunal in the case of Jitendra Harshadkumar Co (supra) has categorically noted that Shri Rakeshkumar Gupta when confronted with his statement made earlier, has categorically rebutted his statement in the course of cross-examination that he was also making genuine sales. The Tribunal after considering this admission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
