9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inafter referred to as, 'the Tribunal'). On 04.10.2017, the present appeal was admitted by this Court on the following questions of law: "A. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT has erred in law and fact by not setting aside the issue of addition of Rs. 3,38,72,852/- on non-genuine purchases to the file of the CIT(A) while the learned ITAT quashed the direction of CIT(A) on the same especially in view of the fact that the ITAT is the ultimate fact finding authority, it should have either settled the issue on the basis of material on record or set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for deciding within the powers vested in it?" The facts of the case are that the assessee - respondent is engaged in the business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g and godowns was not there, the field verifications were made. It was found that at both these addresses, no such companies existed. Vide order sheet entry dated 28.12.2011, this fact of their non-existence at the address provided was brought to the knowledge of the assessee. Since the parties have not been found at the address provided by the assessee, assessee has also not filed their confirmed copy of the account, these purchases of Rs. 3,38,72,852/- are not treated as genuine. Accordingly, they are being added to the income of the assessee as non-genuine purchases." Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent - assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Meerut, who by its order dated 28.03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hases, subject to verification of the PAN, assessment status of the suppliers from the concerned AOs, ignoring that the same were unproved purchases, which are liable to be added in the income as the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of transactions and even notices sent to the suppliers u/s133(6) of the IT Act, 1961 were returned back unserved. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,06,85,086/- made by the AO without appreciating the fact that addition was made on account of inflated purchase where notices sent to the suppliers were returned back unserved despite which the AO had made a very reasonable addition of mere 10% of total purchases." The T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chases, shown by the assessee, as have been made from the said party. The respondent - assessee preferred a writ petition before this Court against the order dated 28.03.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The said writ petition was disposed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 16.05.2013 on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. In pursuance of the direction dated 28.03.2013, the Assessing Authority passed an order dated 24.02.2014 in exercise of powers under section 251 of the Act. In the said assessment, it was brought on record that the returns were not filed by the respective parties and therefore, the said amounts, disclosed by the respondent - assessee, were non-genuine purchases. Against the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
