9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in deciding the appeal in favour of assessee without appreciating the facts that the assessee was not able to substantiate his claim even after giving ample opportunity and also the fact those traders were treated as Hawala dealer by the official website of the Sales Tax department, Govt. of Maharashtra. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in giving full relief to the assesses whereas in similar issues in the cases of CIT Vs. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd. 355 ITR 290 (Guj.) CIT Vs. Simit Seth 356 ITR 451 (Guj.), the Tribunal have decided that though the purchase might have been made form bogus parties, the purchases themselves were not bogus and Hon'ble Tribunal was of the opinion t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- Skand Industries Rs. 15,49,891/- M/s. Sanyo Sales Corporation Rs. 11,50,011/-, Rohit Enterprises Rs. 17,94,978/-, Sumzo Traders P. Ltd. Rs. 34,98,670/- and Toral Enterprises Rs. 15,25,472/- totaling to Rs. 2,60,78,079/-. The assessee asked to produce details of purchases made from these 13 parties as also details such as evidence for delivery of goods, proof of payment etc. The assessee produce all the details called for. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee explained the business situation under which traders like him are forced to deal with brokers to meet the demands of the customers. The AO, therefore, disallowed 12.5% of Rs. 2,06,78,079/- which resulted into an addition of Rs. 33,34,760/-. 5. Matter carried to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Co. 9,33,814 3 Rohit Enterpirses (material) 9,3 6,287 4 Niddhish Impex Pvt. Ltd. 9,42,568 5 Deep Enterprises 9,36,062 6 Colourshop Trading Co. Pvt. 25,62,560 Total 72,60,177 The AO issued notice to all the parties out of which the notices were served upon two parties, two notice retuned back un-served and the remaining two on which notice were served, no reply was received. The AO further observed that assessee failed to produce the parties for verification, the genuineness of the expenses were not proved and treated the entire expenditure as unexplained expenditure from these six parties. The AO not discussed in its order the contention of the assessee, the evidence of purchases, delivery of good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether the aforesaid case of the assessee is covered in favour of the assessee by the various decisions cited by the Id. Counsel. In the case of 1TA No.6727/Mum/2012 (Ay 2009-10) dated 20.08.2014 we find that the similar addition was made on the basis of information available on website of Sales Tax Department. Government of Maharashtra, which was deleted by the Tribunal. The relevant para 2.4 is extracted as below. "2.4 We have heard the rival submission and perused the material before us. We find that the AO had made the addition as one of the supplier was declared a hawala dealer by the VAT Department. We agree that it was a good starting point for making further investigation and take it to logical end. But, he left the job at init ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. In view of this, the matter has attained finality now in favor of the appellant. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the appellant's own case for A.Y. 2010-11, I delete the disallowance of Rs. 33,34,760/- made by the A.O. on account of bogus purchase for AY. 2009-10. The appeal is allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed." 6. The Ld. D.R. submitted that in this case the assessee has purchased from 13 parties and assessee was asked to produce the purchase bill, alleged bogus purchase payment detail, corresponding sales details and quantity detail of the stock. Assessee produced all the details. Accordingly, books of accounts are tested and verified. But some of the parties are not available f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 727/M/2013 wherein it is held as under: "5.1 Now the issue before us is whether the aforesaid case of the assessee is covered in favour of the assessee by the various decisions cited by the Id. Counsel. In the case of 1TA No.6727/Mum/2012 (Ay 2009-10) dated 20.08.2014 we find that the similar addition was made on the basis of information available on website of Sales Tax Department. Government of Maharashtra, which was deleted by the Tribunal. The relevant para 2.4 is extracted as below. "2.4 We have heard the rival submission and perused the material before us. We find that the AO had made the addition as one of the supplier was declared a hawala dealer by the VAT Department. We agree that it was a good starting point for making furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
