ITO 18(2)(5), MUMBAI vs. PRVAIN D. JAIN, MUMBAI

The above titled appeals have been preferred by the Revenue against the common order dated 23.09.2016 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2008-09 & 2009-10.

The short facts of the case are that a survey action under section 133A of the Act was carried out on 05.12.2012 at the office and godown premises of the assessee. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) in the assessment order, considering the fact that the payment for goods

Matter carried to the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. We have heard the Ld. D.R. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in the cases of Shwetambar Steels vs. ITO Ahmedabad and Ganesh Rice Mills vs. CIT (294 ITR 316). The facts in the present case show that assessee could not produce the parties from whom goods are stated to have been purchased. The suppliers were found to be engaged in providing bogus bill without actual dealing of goods. In this regard, the assessee has stated that they had submitted quantitative details of stock with respect of the sales with purchases from the parties during the assessment proceedings. The assessee has submitted the detail of corresponding sales in respect of the purchase from the said parties. As mentioned above the AO has never disputed or examined the aspect of sales receipts. Since the sales made by the assessee was not doubted or disputed by the AO and he has accepted the sales receipts of the assessee as it is, therefore, the AO cannot deny that purchases were not made by the assessee and the material was not used for its sales. What is under dispute is the purchases from the parties from whom bills have been taken and cheques have been issued to them. Purchases are not in dispute but the parties from whom purchase are shown to have been made are disputed and suspicious. The AO had made the addition as some of the suppliers were declared hawala dealers by the VAT Department. This may be a good reason

In this appeal, during the year, the AO found that assessee had made purchases from following parties: 1. M/s. Tej Corporation 2. M/s. Mayur Enterprises 3. M/s. Hari Om Traders

We find that the Revenue has taken the identical grounds in and the same have already been decided as above. Following the same ratio applied in ITA No.7043/M/2016, we decide this appeal also.