TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould not be disbelieved. Under these circumstances, in our view, the CIT(A) made no mistake in deleting the addition with respect to the aforesaid five parties. As a consequence, on this aspect Revenue fails - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.1418/PN/2013, ITA Nos.1475 to 1477/PN/2013 - - - Dated:- 18-3-2015 - Shri G.S. Pannu And Ms. Sushma Chowla JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Nikhil Pathak For the Respondent : Mrs. Mitali Madhusmita 18-03-2015 ORDER Per G. S. Pannu, AM The captioned appeals, three by the Revenue and one by the assessee, belonging to different assessment years involve a common issue, therefore they have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. In all the appeals, the primary dispute is with regard to the action of the Assessing Officer in treating purchases made by the assessee from certain parties as bogus. The facts relevant to appreciate the background of the dispute is that the assessee company belongs to M/s Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. group cases wherein a search action u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) was co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rties to the extent of ₹ 34,29,911/- was held to be bogus and the said sum was added to the returned income. The CIT(A) has sustained the addition with respect to the purchase from M/s Praky Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. - ₹ 13,30,352/- and has deleted the addition with respect to the purchases from Shree Surya Steel and Mayoora Metal Trade Corporation of ₹ 10,34,479/- and ₹ 10,65,080/- respectively. The assessee and Revenue have challenged the action of the CIT(A) in their respective - assessee has challenged the sustenance of addition of ₹ 13,30,352/-, whereas Revenue has challenged the deletion of addition of ₹ 20,99,559/-. It was also a common point between the parties that the impugned decision of the CIT(A) is similar to his decision in the case of M/s Kolte Patil Developers Ltd., which was a subject-matter of consideration by the Tribunal in its order dated 20.02.2015 (supra). 5. In so far as assessee s appeal against the addition of ₹ 13,30,352/- on account of purchases from M/s Praky Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, the same is liable to be dismissed having regard to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Kolte Patil Developer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of post-search investigations itself, Shri Rajesh Patil, CMD of the assessee-company was confronted on this aspect and was offered cross-examination of the said parties. It appears that the assessee did not avail of this opportunity as the CFO of the assesseecompany was not present because the day-to-day nitty-gritty of purchases was not known to the CMD. Even in the course of assessment proceedings, it transpires that the Assessing Officer allowed an opportunity of crossexamination but on the relevant date and time, the suppliers did not turn-up. Be that as it may, in our considered opinion, cross-examination of the suppliers would become material only when the assessee is able to demonstrate with certain primary evidence that the statements given by the suppliers are wrong or that they do not reflect the correct state of affairs. In this context, assessee has merely referred to the purchase bills issued by the suppliers and the cheque payments made. So however, there is no other evidence, namely, GRNs, octroi receipts, delivery challans, etc. which would show that the supplies were indeed made. Therefore, in such a situation, can the absence of cross-examination be fatal to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese circumstances, in our view, the original admission of the said person made at the time of post-search enquiries would hold the field. Thus, on this aspect also, we find that the CIT(A) made no mistake. Therefore, on the aspect of the purchases effected from the six parties with whom enquiries were conducted during post-search period, the CIT(A) justifiably held such purchases as bogus. We hereby affirm his action, and assessee fails on this aspect. 26. Before parting on this issue, we may also touch-upon an alternate plea raised by the assessee with regard to the quantum of addition on this count. In this context, assessee pointed out that if the entire amount of purchase debited in the Profit Loss Account with respect to the six parties is disallowed, it would mean that the corresponding consumption of steel has not taken place in quantitative terms. Before the lower authorities, assessee had furnished a working, which was confirmed by a structural engineer regarding the minimum requirement of steel in the projects undertaken by the assessee. As per the said working, if the aforesaid disputed quantity of steel purchase was excluded, it would show that the consumed quanti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o., (d) M/s Shree Surya Steel, and (e) M/s Satyam Steel as genuine ignoring the materials available on records brought by A.O. 2) The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 8. Although, the Ground of Appeal raised by the Revenue contains purchases effected from (i) Vora Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.; (ii) M/s Mayoora Metal Trade Corporation; (iii) M/s Yash Trading Co.; (iv) M/s Shree Surya Steel; and, (v) M/s Satyam Steel, but in so far as assessment year 2007-08 is concerned, purchases in question relate to M/s Shree Surya Steel - ₹ 10,34,479/- and M/s Mayoora Metal Trade Corporation - ₹ 10,65,080/- only; and, the other parties mentioned involve purchases effected in the balance captioned assessment years, i.e. 2008-09 and 2009-10. The Revenue has raised a common Ground of Appeal for all three captioned years. 9. On this aspect, the Tribunal vide its order dated 20.02.2015 (supra) affirmed the order of the CIT(A) and the relevant discussion is as under :- 28. Now, we may deal with the decision of the CIT(A) whereby the purchases made from five parties have been accepted. In this context, we find th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
