TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 1100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to establish the genuineness of purchase made from the parties, but the factum of the said billings parties being engaged in the bogus bills was not ruled out. Accordingly, after examining all the facts and circumstances and also relying upon decision on similar issue, he restricted the impugned addition and estimated the same at 10% of alleged bogus purchases - We do not find any infirmity in the approach of the ld.CIT(A) in restricting the impugned additions, and therefore, his order does not warrant our intervention in this score. We confirm the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of appeal of the Revenue. - ITA No.1798 and 1799/Ahd/2019, ITA No.1800/Ahd/2019 - - - Dated:- 17-11-2021 - SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r cases where tax effect is not relevant, such as, where addition is based on information received from various other law enforcement agencies such as Central Bureau of Investigation India / Enforcement Directorate / Department of Revenue Intelligence / Serious Fraud Investigation Office / Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI). Admittedly, in the instant case, the addition was made by the AO in 143(3) assessment based on the information received from Maharashtra Sales Tax Authority. It is pertinent to note here that this exception is effective from 20 August 2018, and thus, it is permissible for the Tax Department to appeal before the Tribunal even if the tax effect is within the revised monetary threshold. In this scenario, we fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Scrutiny assessment was initiated on the basis of information received by the Department from Maharashtra Sales Tax Authority relating to bogus purchase from hawala billers namely, K.C. Enterpirse, Manav Impex and Raj International to the tune of Rs.14,91,767/-. The ld.AO sought explanation from the assessee in this regard. However, assessee failed to give any explanation, accordingly the ld.AO made the impugned addition. However, in appeal before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee has explained that the assessment was reopened by the AO on the basis of borrowed satisfaction from the information of Maharashtra Sales Tax Authorities; that except general information nothing was before the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. There is no other material with the Revenue to corroborate the information so received from the Sales Tax Department in order to make the impugned addition nor established that the so-called bogus purchase or the sum equivalent thereof was returned to the assessee in any manner. It appears from the record that no internal inquiry has been carried out by the Revenue to vouch the fact of bogus purchases. The ld.CIT(A) has recorded that the appellant has submitted documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of purchase made from the parties, but the factum of the said billings parties being engaged in the bogus bills was not ruled out. Accordingly, after examining all the facts and circumstances and also relying upon decision on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
