TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an important fact that emerges is that a similar allegation was also made in the case of the assessee, among other allegations, in the earlier assessment years when it had made purchase from M/s Nazar Impex (P) Ltd. (a concern said to have been controlled by Shri Sanjay Chaudhary) and the assessee had approached ITSC for settlement of its case and the ITSC has held the said transactions to be genuine. While upholding the order passed by the learned CIT (A), we rely on the judgment of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Surendra Buildtech Pvt. Ltd 2012 (5) TMI 629 - DELHI HIGH COURT wherein the Hon ble Court held that where the Revenue failed to rebut the findings recorded by the learned CIT (A) by bringing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law on facts in deleting the addition on account of bogus purchases amounting to ₹ 3,12,42,835/- made by the A.O. ignoring the fact that te additions were made on the findings of survey action conducted by the Income Tax Investigation Wing on Sh. Sanjay Chowdhary and his concerns. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law on facts in not appreciating that Sh. Sanjay Chowdhary' acceped in his statement recorded on 03-10-2013, 04-10-2013 and u/s 131 on 10-01-2014 that he was not doing any sale/purchase of diamonds and providing only accommodation entries. 3. On the facts and in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Inv) under section 133A of the Act on one Shri Sanjay Chaudhary and his concerns namely M/s Mayank Impex and M/s Nazar Impex (P) Ltd. The Ld. Sr. DR further argued that Shri Chaudhary, in his statement recorded under section 133A and under section 131 of the Act, had accepted that he was not carrying out any sale and purchase of diamonds and was engaged in providing accommodation entries of sale and purchase. The learned Sr. DR further argued that the AO has also rejected the affidavit dated 8.10.2013 filed during the course of assessment proceedings in which Shri Chaudhary had retracted from the earlier statements recorded by the Investigation Wing, Mumbai on the pretext of being given under duress. The learned Sr. DR, argued that since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned AR also relied on the order under section 147/143(3) for Assessment Year (AY) 2007-08 dated 25.6.2014 in the case of a group concern namely M/s Khanna Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, and submitted that in the case of group concern the case was reopened on similar allegations and that too on the basis of statement of Shri Sanjay Chaudhary. However, the department in the said case accepted the said retraction by Shri Sanjay Chaudhary while passing the order under section 147/143(3) and no adverse inference was drawn against M/s Khanna Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. It was submitted that this fact has also been noted by learned CIT (A) at page 14 Para 4.6, while giving relief in the instant case. 4.2 The learned AR further stated that purchases are fully ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the AO to have made the impugned addition was the statement of one Shri Sanjay Choudhary wherein he has accepted providing accommodation entries through his various concerns. We have gone through the assessment order, wherein, we note that the said person was produced before the AO on 26.02.2016 and the said person retracted from his earlier statement given before the DGIT (Inv). The said retraction was also backed by an affidavit of Shri Sanjay Choudhary. This retraction remains uncontroverted till date. Thus, in our considered view, the whole basis of the Revenue Authorities to have made the impugned addition based on the statement recorded before DGIT (Inv) does not survive and, therefore, the learned CIT (A) has rightly deleted the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proached ITSC for settlement of its case and the ITSC has held the said transactions to be genuine. The finding of the ITSC in assessee s case vide an order dated 27.5.2014 for AY 2005-06 to 2012-13 is reproduced as under- On the issue of purchase diamonds from bogus concerns, we agree with the submission of Ld. AR that the applicant cannot be asked to discharge the burden of proof of existence or genuineness of the alleged sellers as long as purchases are recorded in the books and payments have been made through account payee cheques. The applicants have furnished copies of purchase bills, bank statements, copies of return filed and copies of ledger accounts and sale tax registration which are shown at pages 146-579 of the paper book. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
