9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on entry provider, completely controlled by Shri Anil B Chokhra. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition without considering the facts that if separate documentary evidences submitted by assessee during the appeal proceedings on which decision was given, either which have been not provided to the Assessing Officer for verification or not called a remand report on the same. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that even though the payments made by the assessee towards the purchases are through banking channels will not establish that the transactions are genuine. 4. It is therefore prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may kindly be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. 2. Further on receipt of notice of revenue's appeal, the assessee filed his Cross Objection raising following grounds: "1. On the facts & circumstances of the case and law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirmi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see filed his reply on 12/11/2019. Reply of assessee is scanned on page No. 4 to 8 of assessment order. In the reply, the assessee stated that he is in the trade of diamonds, during the year, the assessee bought polished and rough diamonds, details of which were furnished. The assessee specifically contended that the assessee has not made any purchases from 'Keshav Impex' as has been incorrectly contended in the show cause notice. The assessee specifically stated that he has sold cut and polished diamonds 4032.49 carats worth Rs. 5.04 crores to Keshav Impex. Payment was received within 15/30 days from the date of sale through banking channel. In case, the sale is doubted, it needs to be reduced from stock, then stock position will show negative stock of 4032.49 carats. There is no stock left with the assessee. The assessee also stated that the case was reopened on the basis of information in case of Anil Chokhara and his cross examination may be allowed. The assessee also relied on various case laws. The assessee contended that no addition can be made when quantity is tallied. Reply of assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer retreated that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC) held that sufficiency or correctness of the material was not a thing to be considered at the stage of reopening. The ld. CIT(A) also referred the decision Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 161 Taxman 316 (SC). By referring the above decisions, the ld. CIT(A) simply held that there was a relevant and cogent material before the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment and rejected the corresponding ground. On merit, the ld. CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer has not discharged his onus of disproving the transaction with Keshav Impex as the shame arrangement. The Assessing Officer neither reproduced the statement of proprietor of Keshav Impex, wherein he has stated that the assessee is a beneficiary of bogus transaction nor brought any cogent evidence on record to controvert the document filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer made addition of bogus purchases, no comments were made on the nature of sales made by assessee. Books of account of assessee was not rejected nor recasted the trading result. The assessee has produced the record of purcha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o life link. The Assessing Officer despite bringing the fact in his notice that the assessee has not made any purchase rather sold goods to them, still made addition of bogus purchase. The ld. AR of the assessee by showing his sales register has shown the ledger account of Keshav Impex and the ledger account showing the payment through banking channel on 18/11/2011 or on 19/11/2011. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the grounds of his cross objection is directly covered by the decision of this Bench in ITO Vs M/s Exotic Jewels (supra). 8. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have perused the orders of the lower authorities carefully. We have also deliberated on various documentary evidences filed by the assessee alongwith various decisions of the Tribunal. We find that the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order, simply made addition on the basis of information available with him. The assessee right from the beginning contending that they have not made any purchase from Keshav Impex rather they have sold goods to them. The Assessing officer remained silent on such objection. The assessee furnished sales register, payment register and stock ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
