M/S ASHOK SHRICHAND DARYANI (HUF),AKOLA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, NAGPUR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH
Before: SHRI R.S.SYAL & SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI
आदेश / ORDER
PER R.S.SYAL, VP: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated
27-02-2018 passed by the ld. Pr.CIT, Nagpur-1 u/s.263 of the Income-
tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘The Act’) in relation to the
assessment year 2011-12.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that action u/s.147 was
taken on the ground that the assessee obtained Hawala purchase bills
from 5 parties totaling to Rs.2,08,20,445/-. The assessment was
2 ITA No.110/Nag/2018 M/s. Ashok Shrichand Daryani (HUF)
completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 on 26-12-2016 in which no addition
was made on this score. The ld. Pr.CIT held that the assessment order
was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue because
the Assessing Officer (AO) did not examine this issue. Aggrieved
thereby, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal.
Having heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant
material on record, it is seen that undoubtedly the AO initiated
reassessment proceedings on the ground that the assessee recorded
Hawala purchases from the following parties:
Name Amount (in Rs.) 1.Jai Enterprises 49,12,689/- 2.Pink Lotus Trade India Pvt. Ltd. 39,76,939/- 3. Salibhadra Multi Trade (I) Pvt. 39,76,939/- Ltd. 4. Shreyanjali Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd. 39,76,939/- 5. Classic Enterprises 39,76,939/- Total 2,08,20,445/- 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO issued
notice on 06-10-2016, inquiring, inter alia, about these transactions
and also requiring the assessee to furnish necessary evidences in
support of the genuineness of purchases. The assessee gave its reply
which was received by the AO on 24-10-2016, a copy of which has
been placed at page 8 onwards of the paper book. In such reply, it was
submitted that the assessee did not make any purchase from the first 4
3 ITA No.110/Nag/2018 M/s. Ashok Shrichand Daryani (HUF)
parties as recorded in the reasons for initiation of reassessment
proceedings. As regards the last party, namely, Classic Enterprises, the
assessee submitted that purchases were made from this party. Apart
from purchase vouchers, the assessee also furnished transport builtis in
respect of these purchases to show that these were genuinely purchased
and received at its business premises. The AO, on the basis of such
evidences, got satisfied and also discussed the issue in the assessment
order. In para 3 of his order, the AO recorded that the assessee was
called upon to produce books of accounts, bills/vouchers of purchases
and sales. The same were produced by the assessee and duly verified
on test check basis. In next para, namely, para 4, the AO, further
recorded that the assessee “furnished purchase register along with
purchase bills and transportation details”, which were verified by him
and found to be correct. As against this, the ld. Pr. CIT revised the
order on the ground that: `The order was passed without due
verification of the above information’, namely, accommodation entries
were obtained from the five parties. It is, therefore, evident that the
initiation of revision proceedings on this score is not valid. Not only,
no such transactions were entered into with the first 4 parties, the genuineness of the 5th party, whose purchases were recorded, was also
substantiated with relevant purchase bills and transportation details.
4 ITA No.110/Nag/2018 M/s. Ashok Shrichand Daryani (HUF)
Such details were produced before the AO, who recorded this fact in
the assessment order and also the correctness of the assessee’s claim.
In this backdrop of the facts of the case, it is manifest that the
assessment order cannot be construed as erroneous much less
prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We, therefore, overturn the
impugned order.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27th July, 2023.
Sd/- Sd/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 27th July, 2023 Satish
आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. !यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr.CIT, Nagpur-1 "वभागीय �त�न%ध, आयकर अपील�य अ%धकरण, “नागपुर” ब'च, 4. / DR, ITAT, “Nagpur” Bench गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. // True Copy // आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ%धकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune
5 ITA No.110/Nag/2018 M/s. Ashok Shrichand Daryani (HUF)
Date 1. Draft dictated on 26-07-2023 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 27-07-2023 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed JM before the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved JM by Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to Sr.PS the Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *
