9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 751X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,84,367/- on account of bogus purchases without appreciating that the onus was on the assessee to establish the genuineness of such purchases by providing documentary evidence before the Assessing Officer and the assessee, failed to discharge its onus? 2) The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above grounds be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer restored. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a proprietor of M/s Fear Deal Corporation engaged in the business of trading in hardware, filed his return of income on 18.08.2009 declaring total income of Rs. 5,02,017/- for Assessment Year 2009-10. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 34,283 Cosmos Enterprises 18,405 Citizen Enterprises 52,238 Jainam Enterprises 7,36,084 Girnar Sales Corporation 7,38,857 Dharmi Enterprises 39,04,890 Total 67,37,966 3. The Assessing Officer in order to verify the transaction issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act to all the parties. The notice was returned back unserved by the Postal Department with the remark 'Not known or Left', except to Dharmi Enterprises. The proprietor of Dharmi Enterprises filed his affidavit confirming the transaction. The assessing officer accepted the confirmation filed by Dharmi Enterprises. The assessee was confronted with the facts about the return of notices. The assessee was asked to produce the parties for verification. The assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sallowance by considering the facts the assessing officer in subsequent years i.e. 2010-11 & 2011-12 allowed purchases from both the parties. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the revenue has filed the present appeal before us. 5. We have heard the submission of ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the revenue and the learned authorised representative (ld AR) for the assessee and perused the material available on record. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The ld. DR further submits that Investigation Wing of Income-tax Department has made full-fledged investigation in respect of hawala traders. The hawala traders were/are engaged in providing bogus bill without actual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12.5% of the alleged non-genuine purchases of eight parties by following the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Simith P. Seth [356 ITR 451 (Guj.)]. Before ld CIT(A) the assessee stated that the proprietor of Girnar Sales Corporation and Jainam Enterprises Sh. Rajesh Doshi expired on 04/05/2012. Rajesh Doshi was propitiator of Girnar Sales Corporation and Karta of Rajesh Doshi HUF, being proprietor Jainam Enterprises. The assessee filed copy of death certificate of Rajesh Doshi. It was further contented that similar purchases was allowed by assessing officer in AY 2010-11 & 2011-12 allowed purchases from both the parties in the assessment order passed under section 143/147 dated 29.01.2019 and 20.10.2016. 8. The ld CIT(A) af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
