Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the addition of Rs. 68,47,010 made by disallowing purchases as bogus under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained merely because the supplier did not respond to notice under section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The assessee furnished audited financial statements, bank statements, cash flow statement, purchase details, invoices, raw material purchase details, stock valuation, ledger accounts and confirmation from the supplier. The purchases were supported by banking-channel payments, and the Revenue did not bring any material to show that the payments came back to the assessee. The books of account were not rejected and the sales were not doubted. In these circumstances, non-compliance by the creditor with notice under section 133(6) could not, by itself, establish that the purchases were bogus or justify an addition based only on suspicion and surmises.
Conclusion: The disallowance was unsustainable, and the addition of Rs. 68,47,010 was directed to be deleted in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee has discharged the primary onus by producing contemporaneous documentary evidence and the books of account are accepted, purchases cannot be treated as bogus merely because the supplier fails to respond to a notice under section 133(6) in the absence of contrary material.