9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee read as under: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in law and in facts in alleging that the purchases are non- genuine based on statements given by third parties before the Sales tax Department and without bringing on record any independent and reliable evidence. 2. Further, the AO has erred in making addition of Rs. 36, 73, 2177-pertaining to alleged bogus purchase without providing an opportunity to cross examine the evidence received from the Sales Tax Department and has thereby violated the principles of natural justice. 3. Without prejudice to the above ground, the AO has erred in law and in facts in alleging that the appellant company has made bogus purchases by completely ignor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued notice u/s. 133(6) to the above three parties asking them to produce details of transactions they had with the assessee. One notice remained unserved and from the remaining two, no reply was received till the date of assessment on 10th March, 2015. In view of the above facts, the AO came to a finding that the said purchases as claimed by the assessee from M/s. Nimesh Steels Pvt. Ltd. , M/s. Ridhi Sales Corpn. and M/s. Naina Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. were on account of unsubstantiated bills and these bills were obtained by the assessee from the above entry providers to inflate its purchases, as a result of which, the income of the assessee for the year under consideration has been understated to the extent of Rs. 36, 73, 217/-. Therefore, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justice. It is stated that the ld. CIT(A) ignored various information and documentary evidence such as purchase invoice filed by the assessee before the AO. Therefore, the ld. counsel submits that the order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the order of the AO making addition of Rs. 36, 73, 217/- be set aside. 6. On the other hand the ld. DR submits that the letters issued by the AO u/s. 133(6) could not elicit any information from the said parties. One notice returned unserved and from the remaining two, no reply was received by the AO till the date of order on 10th March, 2015. The ld. DR further submits that in the instant case the quantum of suppressed GP is more than the amount of bogus purchase disallowed. Since the suppressed GP of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
