9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 70,10,470/- as bogus purchase. 3. It is therefore prayed that above addition made by Assessing Officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may please be deleted. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal." 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee runs a proprietary concern namely Suchi Gems and engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading bullions, precious stones, studded jewellery and gold and diamond ornaments. The assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2007-08 on 31.10.2007 declaring total income at Rs. 19,58,800/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. During assessment, the Assessing Officer examined the purchases shown from various parties including Vitrag Jewels of Rs. 70,10,470/-. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 90,40,927/- out of aggregated purchases from nine parties. The case of assessee was agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s decided in favour of assessee also vide order dated 06.06.2014. The case of assessee was again re-opened under section 147. The assessee objected against re-opening. Objection of assessee was not accepted and fresh reassessment was passed on 31.03.2015, which was posted to assessee only on 01.04.2015. The assessee also submitted that purchases from Vitrag Jewels which was genuine. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee upheld the validity of reopening under section 147 by taking view that reopening is based on information received in connection with the impugned transaction from DDIT Wing. On the objection that assessment order is back dated and was served on 01.04.2015, the Ld.CIT(A) held that assessee has not given evidence to such facts. On the objection that purchases of assessee are genuine, the ld CIT(A) by refereeing the statement of Shri Rajendra Jain, who had stated that he was controlling Vitrag Jewels for proving entry, rejected the submissions of assessee. On the basis of such observation, Ld.CIT(A) upheld the action of Assessing Officer. Further aggrieved the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal 5. We have heard the submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee. Before changing jurisdiction notice to the assessee is compulsory. The Ld. AR of the assessee by referring the assessment order passed originally on 30.12.2009 under section 143(3) submits that in the assessment order, the issue of alleged disputed / impugned purchase was examined. The Assessing Office made full investigation of fact and made certain addition on account of unverifiable purchases, re-opening on the same case is nothing but a change of opinion, which is not permissible under law. 7. On merits of the case, the Ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee substantiated said purchases from M/s Vitrag Jewels as well as other parties. The Assessing Officer in the original assessment made certain addition, which on appeal before Ld.CIT(A) was deleted in toto and the order of Ld.CIT(A) was upheld by coordinate Benches of Ahmedabad ITA No.1004/AHD/2011. The Ld. AR for the assessee further submits that even during the reassessment proceeding, the assessee furnished complete details of the purchases which made from M/s Vitrag Jewels. The assessee furnished contra conformation. invoices and bank statement showing such payment made to said parties. The Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was proved that said group was indulging of providing accommodation entry without actual delivery of goods. Once the assessee participated and contested the assessment, so the assessee now has no right to raised technical issue as per section 292BB of the Act. So far as additions of the merit is concerned, the assessee is beneficiary of accommodation entry, therefore, the lower authorities were justified in making the addition of such bogus purchases. 9. We have considered the rival submission of both the parties and have gone through the order of lower authorities carefully. We find that there is no dispute that initially the assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 30.12.2009 for assessment year 2007-08. In the assessment order, Assessing Officer identified the issue of unverifiable purchases including from disputed sellers i.e., M/s Vitrag Jewels, for exact same amount of Rs. 70,10,470/-. The Assessing Officer made addition of unverifiable purchase to the extent of Rs. 90,40,927/-. Such addition was deleted by Ld.CIT(A). On further appeal, the order of Ld.CIT(A) was upheld by co-ordinate Benches of Ahmedabad ITAT No.1004/AHD/2011. We further find that Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
