9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17, 07.12.2017, 18.01.2018, 17.04.2018, 29.05.2018 and 13.08.2018, neither the assessee nor its authorized representative appeared on the above dates. Hence, we proceed to decide the case on merits. 2. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee read as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,38,01,084/- by treating the purchases as bogus / non genuine purchases without appreciating the fact that a. The said purchases are genuine and are supported by the bill / invoice b. The payments were made to the creditors against said purchases by issuing account payee cheques through normal banking channels c. The appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The Inspector reported that no business was being conducted by the aforesaid parties from the given address. Further, in reply to notice u/s 133(6), the proprietor of M/s Ami Traders, Shri Rajendra Ravji Joil, vide letter dated 03.01.2014 stated that he is a taxi driver and has not supplied any material to the assessee. Moreover, the aforesaid parties are identified by the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra as hawala parties. In the statements/affidavits filed by the aforesaid parties before the Sales Tax Department, they have deposed that they have not done any sale of goods to any of the parties. In response to a query raised by the AO to explain why addition on account of disallowance of claim of bogus purchases should n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e by the AO. 5. Before us, the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and submits that in view of the failure on the part of the assessee to file the primary/basic information required to establish the genuineness of transactions and also in view of the affidavits filed by the hawala dealers before the Sales Tax Authorities, Government of Maharashtra, the total addition of Rs. 1,38,01,084/- be confirmed. 6. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the relevant materials on record. In the instant case, the AO has not found faults with the sales made by the assessee. In the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 38 taxmann.com (Guj), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held that where purchases were not bogus but were made from partie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
