TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal reverses Assessing Officer's decision on bogus purchases, emphasizing fair procedures and concrete evidence.</h1> <h3>Garg Acrylics Ltd. Versus Addl. CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi.</h3> Garg Acrylics Ltd. Versus Addl. CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi. - TMI Issues:1. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act2. Alleged bogus purchases and additions made by the Assessing OfficerIssue 1: Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax ActThe appellant challenged the disallowance of Rs. 88,670 made under section 14A of the Act by the CIT(A). The appellant argued that the disallowance was confirmed without considering the principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a specific case. However, Ground No.1 was dismissed as not pressed, indicating that the appellant did not pursue this issue further.Issue 2: Alleged bogus purchases and additions made by the Assessing OfficerThe Assessing Officer alleged that purchases of Rs. 39,98,522 from a specific supplier were bogus, based on information from the Investigation Wing and a statement from an individual associated with the supplier. The AO made an addition of Rs. 7,99,704, estimating profit at 20%. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision but reduced the disallowance to Rs. 6,50,160, applying an average GP rate of 16.26%.The appellant contended that the purchases were genuine, supported by various documents such as ledger accounts, invoices, VAT documents, excise records, and bank statements. The appellant argued that the AO did not provide an opportunity for cross-examination of the individual whose statement was used against them. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's plea, noting the substantial turnover and income declared by the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of cross-examination and the lack of evidence to discredit the appellant's documentation. Consequently, the additions towards bogus purchases were reversed, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.In conclusion, the Tribunal reversed the additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding alleged bogus purchases, emphasizing the importance of fair procedures and substantial evidence in such cases. The judgment highlights the significance of providing opportunities for cross-examination and the need for concrete evidence to support allegations of tax evasion.
TaxTMI 