Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2018 (8) TMI 666

AR that various documents in support of the purchase transactions were duly submitted during the course of assessment proceedings were not considered by the AO and even during the appellate proceedings, the ld CIT(A) has not taken cognizance of the said documents. - Held that:- There is no finding which has been recorded by the lower authorities examining these documents so submitted by the assessee in support of his purchase transactions. Further, we note that there seems to be some confusion on the correct address of these two concerns and their proprietors and as a result, the notices issued by the AO u/s 133(6) were not complied with and even the Inspector could not locate their business premises. In the entirety of facts and circum .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ction 133(6) to various creditors, however, in respect of M/s Madhav Krishna Jewellers and M/s Blue Bird Overseas, no reply to notice issued U/s 133(6) of the Act was received. Thereafter, the AO issued notices in the name of proprietors of these two concerns on the addresses available in PAN database. However, there was again no response from these creditors even to the subsequent notices issued U/s 133(6) of the Act. Thereafter, the AO deputed his Inspector to make field enquiry regarding the actual business activities of these two concerns. The Inspector vide his report dated 18.02.2016 reported that there exists no Plot No. 1087 in Chitrakoot, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur in the name of M/s Blue Bird Overseas and in respect of M/s Madhav Kris .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

der consideration, that during the year declaration it has made purchases to the tune of ₹ 49,11,794/- whereas, as on 31.03.2013, the sundry creditors were to the tune of ₹ 2.49 Crore i.e. the sundry creditors were approximately five times the purchases made by the appellant during the year under consideration. It is pertinent to mention here that in the case of M/s Vardhman Exim Linkers, it was observed by the AO in the assessment order that as per the copy of account filed before it, that the appellant has shown outstanding credit balance of ₹ 2,43,144/-, whereas, as per the confirmation received from the said party, no amount was outstanding from the appellant. It may be mentioned that in its written submissions, it has .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

s mentioned. (e) Payment to both the parties is made by account payee cheque on 31.10.2013 as mentioned on the bill itself and also in the confirmation. 4.2 It was submitted by the ld AR that the lower authorities have not disputed the veracity of TIN/ PAN of these persons and the payment to them by account payee cheque. As per the PAN database, address of the proprietor of M/s Madhav Krishna Jewellers is Shop No. 108, Yatim Khana Building, Opposite Municipal Office, Ahmednagar and address of the proprietor of M/s Blue Bird Overseas is D-189, Pavan Path, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali. There is no finding of AO that notice u/s 133(6) issued at this address is not served to them. The report of the Inspector states that in case of M/s Blue Bird Over .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

Court in case of PCIT Vs. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia (in Tax Appeal No. 691 of 2017 order dt. 18.09.2017) wherein it was held that purchases cannot be treated as bogus if (a) they are duly supported by bills, (b) all payments are made by account payee cheques, (c) the supplier has confirmed the transactions, (d) there is no evidence to show that the purchase consideration has come back to the assessee in cash, (e) the sales out of purchases have been accepted & (f) the supplier has accounted for the purchases made by the assessee and paid taxes thereon. The SLP against this decision has been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 04.05.2018. The facts of the case of assessee are similar and therefore, the addition made b .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||