9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 2002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. The captioned appeal by Revenue for Assessment Year [AY] 2009- 10 assails the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 [CIT(A)], Mumbai dated 03/11/2016 qua deletion of certain additions on account of bogus purchases for Rs. 3,56,16,927/-. None has appeared on behalf of assessee despite service of notice and no adjournment application is on record. Le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stood beneficiary of such bogus purchase bills to the tune of Rs. 3,56,16,927/- from twenty five parties. Consequently, notice u/s 148 dated 20/03/2014 was issued which was followed by statutory notice u/s 143(2) / 142(1). 2.3 To confirm the purchase transactions, notices u/s 133(6) was issued to the alleged bogus supplier, however, the same could not be served as per inspector's report. The asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) noted that the sales reflected by the assessee has been accepted and therefore the impugned additions were not justified. Reliance was placed on several judicial pronouncements. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative [DR] drew our attention to the fact that notices u/s 133(6) could not be served since none of the party was found at the give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the payments were through banking channels. At the same time, the assessee could not produce any confirmations from any of the 25 alleged bogus suppliers and further notices u/s 133(6) could not be served due to nonavailability of any of the party at the given address, which cast serious doubt on assessee's claim. The assessee could not produce any evidence to substantiate actual delivery of mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
