9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ciating the fact that notices u/s 133(6) issued to the purchase parties returned unserved and that the assessee failed to produce these parties for verification even after providing sufficient opportunities thereby failing to prove the identity and genuineness of the purchase transactions. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) is right in deleting addi t ion of Rs. 73,96,790/- made on account of bogus purchases wi thout appreciating that the purchase transactions are within privileged knowledge of the assessee and thus, onus to prove the purchase were genuine is on the assessee who failed to discharge the onus even I remand proceedings." 2. The brief facts of the case are that the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, the assessee, vide letter dated 06-01-2014 and 19-03-2014 submitted purchase bills and payment proof to prove purchases from the above parties as genuine. During the course of assessment proceedings, to ascertain the correctness of purchases, the AO issued notices u/s 133(6) to the parties to file necessary evidence. The notices issued u/s 133(6) were returned unanswered with remark "no such parties are available at the given address". The AO, based on the information received from DGIT(Inv), coupled with further enquiries conducted during the course of assessment proceedings, came to the conclusion that purchases from the above two parties are bogus in nature and hence, made addition of R.73,96,70 u/s 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... towards bogus purchases u/s 69C of the Act. Aggrieved by order of CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us. 4. We have heard the Ld.DR and perused material available on record. The AO made addition towards purchases on the basis of information received from Maharashtra Sales-tax department which informed that the parties are involved in providing accommodation entries without any business activity. According to the AO, notices issued u/as 133(6) were returned unserved with remark "not known" or "unclaimed". Therefore, the AO opined that though the assessee has furnished certain evidences to justify purchases from above parties, failed to prove the genuineness of purchases in the backdrop of clear findings of Maharashtra Sales-tax depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact that the notices issued u/s 133(6) were returned unserved with remark, "not known" or "unclaimed". The assessee has failed to furnish correct addresses of the parties. Under these circumstances, it is very difficult to accept that the purchases from those parties are explained to the satisfaction of the AO. Under these facts and circumstances what needs to be taxed is only the profit element in such purchases but not the total purchases made from alleged bogus parties. This view has been further supported by the decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Vijay Protiens Ltd (supra) wherein it was held that only profit element embedded in bogus purchases needs to be taxed. We further notice that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
