TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1088X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment for the AY.2007-08,invoking the provisions of section 147 of the Act.The reasons recorded by the AO are identical to the decision taken by him for the subsequent AY.s.Therefor,we would adjudicate the appeal for the AY.s.2008-09 and2009-10 before deciding the appeal for the AY.2007-08.Assessee-HUF,is in the business of interlining cloth.Details of dates of filing of returns, returned incomes,etc.can be summarised as under:- A.Y. ROI filed on Returned Income(Rs.) Assessment dt. Assessed Income(Rs.) Dt. of orders of CIT(A) 2007-08 04.10.2007 1,01,090/- 28/01/2014 28,88,380/- 29/04/2014 2008-09 23.09.2008 1,81,465/- 29.12.2010 96,02,730/- 29/08/2013 2009-10 28.07.2009 2,55,336/- 15.12.2011 1,02,07,430/- 29/08/2013 ITA/4629/Mum/13,AY.2008-09: 2. Effective ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statements filed during assessments, that merely on the statement made by a person purchases could not be termed non-genuine,that the AO had not given the assessee opportunity to cross examine the parties/concerns,copies of the bank statement were furnished to the AO evidencing payment by Account payee cheques, that the AO had not rejected the sales figures sown in the books of account, that it was maintaining purchase register, sales register, stock register.The assessee submitted comparative statement of sales, gross profit and net profit before the FAA. He called for a remand report from the AO.After considering the available material,he held that the AO had relied upon the statements of RKG to make additions in the hands of the purchaser, that he had not provided the opportunity of cross examination of RKG inspite of specific request made by it,that the assessee had submitted the day to day movement of material alongwith the corresponding sales/inventory of stock, that the books of account of the assessee were audited,there was no adverse comment by the auditors about completeness of the books of account or about the quantitative details, that if the sales were treated as genui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee was asked to justify his purchases from the aforementioned parties. 2.1. The assessee submitted bills with delivery challan, the evidence of making payment through account payee cheque. The assessee also filed monthly quantitative stock reconciliation. The assessee was further asked to explain why the bogus purchases made from the aforementioned parties be not added to the income. It was explained by the assessee that the statements given by Shri Rakeshkumar M. Gupta and his family members are not correct. It was further explained that purchases and sales are duly reflected in the books of account of the assessee. It was also brought to the notice of the AO that the Affidavit of Shri Rakeshkumar M. Gupta and his family members who have denied in the said affidavit about the activity of issuance of bogus bills. The explanation of the assessee did not find any favour from the AO who was of the opinion that the assessee has availed bogus bills amounting to ₹ 10,59,265/-. The AO went on to treat the purchases amounting to ₹ 10,59,265 from the said Shri Rakeshkumar M. Gupta and his family members as bogus and accordingly added the same to the returned income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our of the assessee,that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jeetendra Harshadkumar Textiles was subsequently followed by the Tribunal to decide a similar issue in favour of the assessee in the case of M/s Pramit Textiles (ITA/3948 to 3953/Mum/2012 and ITA/4012 to 4015 and 4020 to 4021/ Mum/2012 dated 01.10.2013)and Neeta Textiles(ITA/6138-40/Mum/2013,dtd. 27.05.2015). In the cases of Ashish Jobanputra(ITA No.2566/Mum/2013).In the case of Nikunj Exim (supra)the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has dealt the issue of bogus purchases and corresponding sales as under:- We have considered the submission on behalf of the Revenue. However, from the order of the Tribunal dated April 30, 2010, we find that the Tribunal has deleted the additions on account of bogus purchases not only on the basis of stock statement, i.e., reconciliation statement but also in view of the other facts. The Tribunal records that the books of account of the respondentassessee have not been rejected. Similarly, the sales have not been doubted and it is an admitted position that substantial amount of sales have been made to the Government Department, i.e., Defence Research and Development Laboratory, Hyd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
