Revenue's Appeal Dismissed, Purchases Deemed Genuine: Tribunal Upholds CIT(A) Decision

DCIT-9 (1) (2), Mumbai Versus M/s. ATC India Tower Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

DCIT-9 (1) (2), Mumbai Versus M/s. ATC India Tower Corporation Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the purchases from M/s Aster Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and R.N. Infra Communication Pvt. Ltd. as genuine despite non-compliance with notices issued u/s 133(6) of the IT Act.
2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the purchases as genuine when the assessee failed to produce the vendors for confirmation during assessment proceedings.
3. Whether the order of the CIT(A) should be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Non-compliance with Notices u/s 133(6)
The revenue contested the genuineness of purchases from M/s Aster Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and R.N. Infra Communication Pvt. Ltd. due to non-compliance with notices issued u/s 133(6). The Tribunal noted that the notices were served but not responded to by the suppliers, which was beyond the control of the assessee. Additionally, one of the suppliers, R.N. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., was under liquidation. The Tribunal emphasized that the existence of the suppliers was established, and the non-response did not automatically imply that the purchases were bogus.

Issue 2: Failure to Produce Vendors for Confirmation
The assessee was unable to produce the vendors for confirmation during assessment proceedings. However, the assessee provided substantial documentary evidence, including purchase invoices, material receipt notes, bank statements, and confirmations from the suppliers. The Tribunal observed that the assessee demonstrated the trail of the purchased material and the utilization of the same in constructing towers, which were uniquely identifiable and generated lease income. The Tribunal found that the documentary evidence provided by the assessee was sufficient to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases.

Issue 3: Setting Aside the Order of CIT(A)
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), which deleted the disallowance made by the A.O. The CIT(A) had carefully considered the evidence provided by the assessee, including confirmations from the suppliers, sample invoices, and proof of payments through banking channels. The CIT(A) also noted that similar purchases in the subsequent assessment year were accepted by the revenue. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, as the assessee had provided overwhelming evidence to substantiate the purchases.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by the revenue, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the purchases as genuine. The Tribunal concluded that the non-response to notices u/s 133(6) did not invalidate the substantial evidence provided by the assessee, and the purchases could not be deemed bogus based on suspicion alone. The Tribunal's decision was in line with the principles laid down in the cited judicial precedents, including CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.