DCIT 9(1), MUMBAI vs. ASPEE AGRO EQUIPMENT P.LTD, MUMBAI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,” ए” खंडपीठ मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI-A,BENCH सव"ी जोिग"दर"सह , "याियक सद"य एवं एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं एवं Before S/Sh. Joginder Singh,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA/4065/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year :2010-11 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dy. CIT-9(1) M/s. Aspee Agro Equipment Pvt. Mumbai-400 020. Malad (W) Mumbai-400 064. PAN:AAACA 8980 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर सेसेसेसे/Assessee by :Shri B.P. Purohit िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by :Shri Mohammed Rizwan सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख / Date of Hearing : 03-12- 2015 सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 01.01.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार PER RAJENDRA, AM- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging the order dt.24.03.2014 of CIT(A)-19,Mumbai,the Assessing Officer(AO)has filed the present appeal. Assessee-company,engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of agricultural equip - ments,filed its return of income on 30.09.2011,declaring income at Rs.5.28Crores.The AO completed the assessment on 15.02.2013,u/s.143(3) of the Act determining the income of the assessee at Rs.5.51 Crores. 2.Effective ground of appeal is about deleting the addition made by the AO,amounting to Rs. 25.58 lakhs.During the assessment proceedings,the AO found that the assessee had made purchases of certain material from Jay Enterprise(JE).He had received certain information from the Sales Tax Department(STD)that JE was providing accommodation bills only,that it was not supplying goods to its buyers.He directed the assessee to produce JE.As per the AO the assessee did not produce JE before him during the assessment proceedings.Therefore,he treated the purchase made from JE as bogus purchases and added it to the total income of the assessee. 3.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before him the assessee produced voluminous submissions along with extensive documentary evidences.The FAA called for a remand report (RR)from the AO.The assessee argued before the FAA that it had furnished copies of delivery challans, invoices, store register,details of cheque payment and bank statements in connection with its dealing with JE,that purchases had been made nearly four years ago,that there was no further transaction with JE,that the AO had relied upon the information received from STD,that onus was on the AO that the purchases were bogus.After considering the submissions of the assessee and the assessment order along with the RR,the FAA held that the assessee had established that there was a clear audit trail available in the matter that included placing of order,receipt of goods, payment

4065/M/14-Aspee Agro-10-11

through banking channels,that in such cases something more was required to hold it bogus transaction,that the AO had never confronted the assessee the information that was received from STD.Referring to the case of Chiranjilal Steel Rollng Mills Ltd.(84ITR222),he held that the information received from STD was of general nature.Finally,he allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4.Before us,the the Departmental Representative(DR)supported the order of the AO.The Authorised Representative (AR) stated that the AO had not proved that entries were not genuine,that the assessee had provided all the necessary details with regard to the transaction to the AO. 5.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that the AO received certain pieces of information from the STD,that as per the information JE was supplying bogus bills,that the AO did not supply the copy of the statement of JE to the assessee and neither made him available for cross examination,that the assessee had filed all the details from placing of order to the receipt of final bills before the AO during the assessment proceedings, that the assessee had discharged the onus cast upon it,that after that the AO did not make any inquiries,that the assessee had not rejected the books of accounts of the assessee ,that he had accepted the sale made by the assessee.In our opinion the AO had violated the basic principles of natural justice and the FAA had rightly held that addition made by the AO would fall in the category of addition made behind the back of the assessee. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Ltd.(372ITR619) has held that if the AO accepts the sales as genuine,there cannot be any justification in rejecting the purchases.Information received from STD was a good starting point for further investigation.But,the AO stopped at that point itself and did not bring on record anything that could rebut the documentary evidence produced by the assessee.In our opinion,addition made by the AO was justifiably deleted by the FAA.Therefore, confirming his order,we decide effective ground of appeal against the AO. As a result, appeal filed by the AO stands dismissed. फलतः िनधा"रती अिधकारी "ारा दािखल क" गई अपील नामंजूर क" जाती है Order pronounced in the open court on 1st January, 2016. आदेश क" घोषणा खुले यायालय म# $दनांक 01 जनवरी , 2016 को क" गई । (जोिग"दर"सह/ Joginder Singh) (राजे"" / RAJENDRA) "याियक सद"य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य मुंबई/Mumbai,"दनांक/Date 01.01.2016 व.िन.स.Jv.Sr.PS. 2

4065/M/14-Aspee Agro-10-11

आदेश क" क" "ितिलिप "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेश आदेश आदेश क" क" "ितिलिप "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत अ"ेिषत 1.Appellant /अपीलाथ"