TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 509
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trading of jewellery. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income declaring income at Rs. 56,82,370/- under provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The case was selected for scrutiny assessment and the scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 31/03/2016, wherein, income of the assessee - company was assessed at Rs. 3,69, 28, 770/- after making certain additions/disallowances. The assessee company preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), which was partly allowed by learned CIT (A) in favour of assessee. 2.1 Aggrieved by the said order of learned CIT (A), the revenue is now in appeal before this Tribunal and has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. On the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were made by the assessee. 6. That the order of the CIT (A) is perverse, erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 7. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/ all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal." 3.0 The learned Sr. DR relied on the findings so recorded by the Assessing Officer (AO) and argued that the AO has made an addition of Rs. 3,12,42,835/- on account of bogus purchases made by the assessee - company from M/s Mayank Impex and M/s Nazar Impex (P) Ltd. It was submitted that the addition has been made on the basis of survey conducted by the DGIT (Inv) under section 133A of the Act on one S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng through the said order of ITSC, has recorded a finding at page 15, Para 4.10 that on "identical facts and circumstances prevailing in earlier years the Income Tax Settlement Commission at New Delhi which after due consideration held in favour of the appellant with the observation 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 of purchase and brokerage have been made through cheques." It was submitted by learned AR that in view of the aforesaid findings so recorded by learned CIT (A), the impugned addition has rightly been deleted by learned CIT (A). 4.1 The learned AR also relied on the order under section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he documentary evidence furnished by the assessee evidencing the factum of purchases, the addition cannot be sustained and has rightly been deleted by the Ld. CIT (A). 5.0 We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that the Ld. Sr. DR was not able to controvert with concrete evidence to the contrary, the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) while deleting the addition made by the AO of an amount of Rs. 3,12,42, 835/- and we note that the relief granted by learned CIT (A) is based on positive documentary evidences, which were brought on record by assessee. The same are discussed below: (i) The sole basis of the AO to have made the impugned addition was the statement of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... group case of the assessee, the same cannot be agitated or doubted in the assessee's case and, therefore, it is our considered opinion that the learned CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition by placing reliance on the assessment order in the case of group concern namely M/s Khanna Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. (iii) That further, on going through the order of lower authorities, 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 sa....