TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by : Ms. Aman Preet, Sr.DR Respondent by : Sh.Bhupender Jit Kumar, Adv. ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-31, New Delhi dated 20.09.2017 pertaining to assessment year 2014-15. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law on facts in deleting addition of ₹ 2,04,36,269/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases without appreciating the facts that the physical verification of the address of the referred three creditors has revealed that their addresses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t proceedings called upon the assessee to give details of sundry creditors, purchases exceeding sum of ₹ 50,000/- and details of purchases above ₹ 01 Lakh made during the year. In response thereto, the assessee filed reply furnishing the details as called for. While framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer doubted the genuineness of purchases made by the assessee from three parties namely M/s. Heramani Impacts; M/s. Pooja Fashions M/s. P. S. Expo Fabric Pvt.Ltd. After examination of details filed by two parties, the Assessing Officer disallowed the purchases made on the following grounds:- (i) All the three parties are running their business from D-193, Gali No.8, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. However, the premise is cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t as such the premises was locked. Ld DR. further submitted that it was incumbent upon the assessee to prove the purchases. The assessee has miserably failed to dispel the suspicion of the Assessing Officer that the purchases were bogus. Ld. DR further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to take note of the fact that parties were not having sufficient funds to make purchases. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in making the disallowance and adding the same in the income of the assessee. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee opposed these submissions and supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. Counsel for the assessee further took us through the assessment order as well as impugned order to buttress the conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (iii) Mismatch in amount paid to related parties u/s 40(A)(2)(b). I find that no adverse inference has been drawn by the Assessing Officer specifically with regard to the above three parameters. 4.3.7. I find that the appellant had made purchases of ₹ 11,07,31,239/-. Out of these, purchases of the value of ₹ 2,04,36,629/- have been doubted by the AO, for reasons which do not stand judicial scrutiny. The aforesaid three persons have duly confirmed the sales. The appellant who is the buyer has also confirmed the purchases. Payments have been made by account payee cheques. The sellers have sold good to several buyers and received cheques in their respective bank accounts. The evidence of dispatch of goods a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
