TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were made by the assessee or that the Firm was a non-existing Firm. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA NO. 3519/DEL/2017, CROSS OBJECTION NO. 52/DEL/2020 (IN ITA NO. 3519/DEL/2017, ITA NO. 3520/DEL/2017, CROSS OBJECTION NO. 8/DEL/2020 (IN ITA NO. 3520/DEL/2017 - - - Dated:- 30-9-2020 - Shri H.S. Sidhu, Judicial Member And Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Sh. Suresh Gupta, CA For the Department : Sh. Sunil, CIT(DR) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM: These appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections by the Assessee are directed against the separate impugned orders both dated 27.03.2017 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-28, New Delhi in relation to assessment year 2009-10. Since common issues in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no. 9 vide para no. 4.3. He requested that the Department Appeals may be dismissed. He further stated that he is not pressing both the Cross Objections of the Assessee and the same may be dismissed, as not pressed. 5. On the contrary, Ld. DR has not controverted the statement given by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and has also not produced any contrary decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India on the issue in dispute. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records especially the impugned orders. In view of the facts and circumstances case and the statement made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and the arguments advanced by the Ld. CIT(DR), we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition in disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITA No. 670/Del/2Q13 : Asstt. Year 2009-10 The Ld. CIT (A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and the remand report of the AO observed that no independent enquiry had made by the AO to form an opinion that M/s Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises had provided accommodation bills to the assessee in respect of the material purchased by it and his remand report was silent on this issue. The Ld. CIT(A) pointed out that Sh. Surendra Kumar Sharma had given evasive replies to the questions and had nowhere stated that he was into business of providing accommodation bills or that he had provided accommodation bills to the assessee in the material purchased from him. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the AO had not pointed out any defects in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee for the year under consideration revealed that the purchases made by the assessee from M/s Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises had been accepted by the Trade Tax Department. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that looking to the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case the possibility of buying the said material from the parties other than M/s Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises could not be completely ruled out specially in the background of the fact that no doubt was expressed by the assessee on the quantum of the material sold. The Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that the material might have been purchased by the assessee from the parties other than Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises probably to save some local taxes etc. and at best could be treated as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement of one Sh. Surendra Kumar Sharma, Proprietor of M/s Rddhi Siddhi Enterprises which was later on retracted and it was stated that he was not indulged in providing the entries to the assessee or to any other person. The AO did not provide any opportunity to the assessee to cross examine Sh. Surendra Kumar Sharma. In the present case, it is also noticed that the turnover of the assessee was accepted by the Trade Tax Department and it is not the case of the AO that proper books of accounts were not maintained by the assessee in regular course of business or the same method of accounting was not followed consistently. The Ld. CIT(A) examined the bank accounts as well as books of accounts of the assessee and categorically stated that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are of the opinion that the once the sales have been accepted, it necessary falls that the assessee had also made purchases and it cannot, therefore, be held that bogus purchases were made. Consequently, the mere fact that purchases were made from a Firm whose registration was cancelled does not mean that bogus purchase were made by the assessee or that the Firm was a non-existing Firm. In our view, the deletion was rightly made by the first appellate authority. This being a question of fact, no substantial questions of law arises for consideration 4.4 Considering above it is apparent that the issue raised in appeal in question on identical facts has already been considered and decided by the Hon ble ITAT, Delhi in ITA No. 670/De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
