TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on–existent or had not complied to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer by furnishing necessary information. In this case, the suppliers have come forward and have confirmed the sales effected to the assessee through proper documentary evidences. Thus, on the face of such evidences available on record, the purchases made cannot be held as bogus merely on presumption and surmises and on the sole reasoning that the assessee was unable to produce delivery challan / angadia receipts. In this context, assessee’s explanation that diamond did not require to be transported through vehicle appears plausible. In view of the aforesaid facts, we hold that, even, disallowance @ 2.5% as made by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is also unjust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in the business premises of the assessee on 13th August 2008, which was converted to a search under section 132(1) of the Act and consequent thereupon a proceeding under section 153A of the Act assessee initiated against the assessee. In response to the notice issued under section 153A of the Act assessee was filed its return of income and ultimately the Assessing Officer completed assessment under section 143(3) r/w section 153A of the Act vide order dated 31st December 2010, determining the total income at ₹ 1,52,78,500. Against the assessment order so passed, the assessee approached appellate authorities with which we are not concerned with in the present proceeding. When the matter stood thus, the Assessing Officer on the basi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iness premises. He, therefore, held that purchases claimed to have been made from the two parties are not genuine. However, considering the fact that the assessee has maintained stock register and was able to furnish the quantitative details of purchases along with the corresponding sales, the Assessing Officer observed that the goods have entered into assessee s stock from undisclosed source and probably from grey market. He, therefore, held that in the facts of the assessee s case, the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases has to be assessed to tax. Accordingly, he disallowed 8% out of the alleged bogus purchase of ₹ 9,12,47,945 and added back an amount of ₹ 7,29,835. Being aggrieved of the addition so made, the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to produce delivery challan / angadia receipts, the Assessing Officer has disallowed a part of the purchases. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, since the assessee deals in diamond it does not required transportation through any vehicle or goods carrier so that transportation receipts, delivery challan will be available. He submitted, diamonds are generally carried by either a person himself or through his agent. Therefore, there is no question of furnishing any transport receipt / delivery challan, etc. He submitted, since, the assessee has proved the purchases through documentary evidences, no addition should be made. 9. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is evident, pursuan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o prove the genuineness of the purchases. In fact, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer to ascertain the genuineness of the purchases issued notices under section 133(6) of the Act to the concerned parties calling for the following details. i) Nature of your business and also the nature of transaction you have entered into with the above assessee for the period A.Y. 2008 09; ii) Copy of your acknowledgment of income tax return file by you for assessment year 2008 09; iii) Copy of ledger of M/s. Ronak Gems Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y. 2008 09 appearing in your books of account; iv) Ledger accounting evidencing the purchase / sale from M/s. Ronak Gems Pvt. Ltd. v) The copy of Bank Statement for the above period reflec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hem to the assessee. Therefore, in our considered view, the primary onus cast upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of purchases has sufficiently been discharged. If the Assessing Officer still had doubt regarding the purchases made from the concerned parties, it should have triggered further enquiry or investigation at his end and he should have brought cogent evidence on record to establish the fact that purchases claimed to have been made from the concerned parties are not genuine. It is not a case where the sellers / suppliers are found to be non existent or had not complied to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer by furnishing necessary information. In this case, the suppliers have come forward and have confirmed the sales ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
