TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1764X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d confirmed sale of the steel to the assessee. It was noticed that the assessee had in fact constructed a huge plant, which, in the absence of purchases of steel could not have been set up. The Tribunal, correctly concurred with the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the Assessing Officer was not justified in holding that there were bogus purchases of M.S. steel in assessment year 2004-05. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Tax Appeal No. 661 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 28-9-2015 - MS. HARSHA DEVANI AND MR. A.G.URAIZEE, JJ For the Petitioner : Mr Sudhir M Mehta, Advocate ORDER PER : MS. HARSHA DEVANI 1. The appellant revenue in this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me date, an amount of ₹ 2,74,35,000/- was transferred by Dhruv Steel to Account No.1127 of Vimal Marketing maintained with the same bank as loan. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the payment made to Dhruv Steel had come back in the form of deposit to the assessee received from Vimal Marketing. In order to verify the genuineness of purchases, the Assessing Officer made inquiries from those parties from whom total purchases were shown to have been made by Dhruv Steel. It appears that the letter sent by post to two of the parties were returned with the remark not known and in respect of the other concerns, notice was served but no compliance was made. The Assessing Officer further noted that neither Dhruv steel nor the so-cal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eness of the said purchases had been duly discharged. The assessee asserted that Dhruv Steel had never denied the sales to it and that there is no legal obligation cast upon the assessee to prove source of source of purchase, nonetheless, the assessee had enclosed copies of returns of the parties which had supplied steel to Dhruv Steel to the Assessing Officer to enable him to verify at his end, as all the three parties were regular tax payers. The Assessing Officer, however, did not accept the explanation and disallowed 25% of the depreciation claimed and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upon appreciation of the material on record found that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dhruv Steel and Vimal Marketing and payment by the assessee to Dhruv Steel cannot be mixed up. The Commissioner (Appeals) after appreciating the material on record recorded the following findings:- 4. I have considered the assessment order and the above submissions. It is noted that the A.O. has referred to the post search enquiry with M/s. Dhruv Steel and further enquiry with suppliers to Dhruv Steel u/s.133(6) and concluded that the purchase of steel by the appellant is not genuine. The A.O. has further relied on the fact that the payment of ₹ 2.74 crores by the appellant was made to Dhruv Steel and on the same date, Dhruv Steel had made payment to Vimal Marketing and at the same time the appellant was having deposit from M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement of Shri Shyamlabhai R. Patel, a third party, cannot be upheld: I also find force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the purchases made by the appellant were duly supported by various documentary evidences such as inward stamped bills and weigh bridge challans. The A.O. has overlooked such evidence, particularly the confirmation of Dhruv Steel from whom the appellant has purchased steel arid the fact that if the purchases made by the appellant were not genuine, it would not have been able to construct a huge plant of oil, which is, evident from the photographs submitted by the appellant. Accordingly, on appreciation of the facts of the case of the appellant in light of the various judicial rulings reli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion and substantial questions of law as proposed or otherwise are required to be formulated. 6. As can be seen from the impugned order, the Tribunal has concurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals), namely, that the assessee had provided copies of bills of purchase and had also given evidence to establish that the steel reached the assessee s factory at Anjar by way of weigh bridge receipt which showed that the steel had actually reached the assessee s factory. The purchases made by the assessee were duly supported by various documentary evidences such as inward stamped bills and weigh bridge challans, etc. and that M/s. Dhruv Steel had confirmed sale of the steel to the assessee. It was noticed that the assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
