TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder section 143(3). It is not the case of the AO that the assessee has not furnished the requisite documents and details of purchase rather the AO conducted a detailed enquiry during the original assessment on the issue of genuineness of purchases. Thus the information received by the AO from Investigation Wing Mumbai would not amount to non disclosure of particulars by the assessee, rather it was the subject matter of enquiry by the AO in the original assessment. If the AO failed to conduct proper enquiry regarding the genuineness of the purchases, the same would not give jurisdiction to the AO to review the order or remove the defect based on subsequent information - the power and jurisdiction vested with one authority cannot be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bhanwar Lal Jain without bringing any corroborative material on record and without making proper enquires in the matter to ensure that any income of assessee has escaped assessment. Thus, appellant prays completion of assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) must be held bad in law. 1.2. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in ignoring the fact that the assessment in the case of appellant stood completed u/s 143(3) where after making necessary enquires, provisions of section 145(3) were invoked and income was estimated, thus the re-opening of completed assessment on account of alleged unverifiable purchases is change of opinion and thus the order passed is without any authority of law and thus the additions made deserves to be deleted. 2. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) in confirming the said purchases as bogus deserves to be held bad in law. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming trading addition of ₹ 4,71,123/- being 15% of the alleged unverifiable purchases of ₹ 31,40,818/- arbitrarily, without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made before him. Thus, the addition of ₹ 4,71,123/- deserves to be deleted. 3.1. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the impugned addition made by Ld. AO by alleging the purchases made from two parties as bogus by ignoring the fact that in appeal filed against the assessment order passed u/s 143(3), the Ld. CIT(A), had already upheld t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aking a trading addition of ₹ 7,85,204/-. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT (A) and raised the objection against the reopening of the assessment. The ld. CIT (A) though confirmed the validity of reopening of assessment, however, restricted the trading addition to ₹ 4,71,123/- as against ₹ 7,85,204/- made by the AO. 3. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that on perusal of reasons recorded by the AO for reopening of the assessment, it can be observed that the assessment is reopened merely on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing Mumbai without arriving at the objective conclusion drawn after examining the so called information, the basis has been formed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , therefore, the reopening is valid and proper. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. There is no dispute that the original assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 27th December, 2010 after an addition on account of unverifiable/bogus purchases was made by the AO. Thus it is manifest from the record that the AO while completing the original assessment under section 143(3) has conducted an enquiry in respect of the purchases made by the assessee and finally concluded that the purchases made by the assessee from the 12 parties were not verifiable and accordingly an addition of 25% of such purchases were made by the AO. Therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investigation, the same would not turn the case in the category that the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all the particulars necessary for assessment. It is not the case of the AO that the assessee has not furnished the requisite documents and details of purchase rather the AO conducted a detailed enquiry during the original assessment on the issue of genuineness of purchases. Thus the information received by the AO from Investigation Wing Mumbai would not amount to non disclosure of particulars by the assessee, rather it was the subject matter of enquiry by the AO in the original assessment. Therefore, if the AO failed to conduct proper enquiry regarding the genuineness of the purchases, the same would not give jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
