TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 717
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... off by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. There has been a delay of 2 days in filing the appeal. Having gone through the affidavit filed, we find that there was reasonable cause in delay in filing the appeal. The delay in filing the appeal is therefore condoned. 3. The grounds of appeal for the AY 2010-11 & AY 2011-12 are same. Only the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) towards the alleged bogus purchases differs. The amount is Rs. 19,88,227/- for AY 2010-11 and Rs. 21,18,170/- for AY 2011-12. We take up the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2010-11 which read as under: - 1. The Commissioner of Income tax, Appeals 2, Thane had erred in confirming the reopening of the Assessment u/148 and rej....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ested the AO to provide a copy of the satisfaction for re-opening of assessment. The AO sent a reply to the assessee along with the documentary evidence supplied by the Sales Tax Department. In order to ascertain the genuineness of the above purchases, the AO called for information u/s 133(6) from the above parties. The letters issued by him were returned back by the postal authorities unserved with the remarks 'not known'. The assessee was then specifically asked to produce these parties for examination in person to establish their identity and substantiate the claim of purchases from those parties. The assessee, however, failed to produce the above parties for examination in person. The AO has noted that barring the ledger account and ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Application for Condonation of delay, (iii) Copy of Audited Balance Sheet, (iv) Copy of Tax Audit Report, (v) Ledger extracts of alleged Hawala parties, (vi) Copies of bills of alleged Hawala Parties along with delivery challan of the party and of the Appellant and (vii) Bank statements indicating payments to alleged hawala parties. 6.1 Also another P/B was filed by the Ld. Counsel containing the documents received from the Sales Tax Department by the AO. The P/B contains (i) Application, (ii) Jainam Traders Corporation; Summons Witness-Narendra Sheth; Deposition, Affidavit - Narendra Sheth; Summons Witness - Pravin Rajwat; Deposition; Affidavit - Pravin Rajwat; Form 103; (iii) Parasnath Enterprises; Summons Witness; Deposition; Summons Wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... view of the above, the 1st ground of appeal is dismissed. 8.1 Now we turn to the 2nd ground of appeal. We find that to ascertain the genuineness of the unverifiable purchases, the AO called for information u/s 133(6) from the five parties. The letters were returned back by the postal authorities unserved with the remarks 'not known'. The AO then asked the assessee to produce the above parties for examination in person to establish their identity and substantiate the claim of purchases from those parties. The assessee however, failed to produce those parties for examination in person. Also we find that barring the ledger account and cheque payments, no other documents such as octroi receipts, transport bills were produced before the AO by ....