TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 1364
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsal Traders (P) Ltd. ignoring that. a) Sh. Atul Kumar Bansal, who controls M/s. Kumar Bansal Traders (P) Ltd. admitted on oath that this concern was used to provide accommodation entries. b) On independent enquiries made by the A.O. M/s. Kumar Bansal Traders (P) Ltd. was not found at the given address. c) Even the enquiries from the Sales Tax Department about the existence of M/s. Kumar Bansal Traders (P) Ltd. had proved the non existence of the said concern. d) The assessee failed to produce the principal officer of said concern and also failed to furnish any information as to whereabouts of said concern. e) The case laws mentioned by AO in the assessment order are relevant & applicable to this case. f) The Ld. CIT(A) has himself stated in his appellate order that it is likely that the bills in respect of these purchase have been purchased from the grey market. g) The Ld. CIT(A) has himself stated in his appellate order that the existence of M/s. Kumar Bansal Traders (P) Ltd. is doubtful & appeared to have been issued the accommodation entries only. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in deleting the consequential addi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ders (P) Ltd. They were not found on the given address nor the Sales Tax Department was able to find their existence. Even the Principal Officer of M/s. Kumar Bansal Traders (P) Ltd. required tobe produced before the AO by the assessee company was not produced. The AO noted further that the linkage of the purchased item i.e Sandal Wood with the sale of the finished products could not be ascertained because of purchased commodity and finished goods had separate identity and was result of many processes. The AO accordingly made addition of Rs. 26,20,800/- u/s 69C of the Act on account of bogus purchases from M/s. Kumar Bansal Traders (P) Ltd. Being satisfied with the submission of the assessee and the evidence produced in support, the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition of Rs. 26,20,800/- made u/s 69C of the Act. This action of the first appellate authority has been impugned by the revenue before the Tribunal. 5. In support of the grounds the Ld. DR has basically placed reliance on the assessment order. He submitted that onus lies heavily on the claimant to establish genuineness of his claim, to which assessee has thoroughly failed to. The assessee could not produce the Principal Of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hese documents were produced before the authorities below. These are the copies of purchase invoices, stock ledger and trading account, assessment order of Haryana Taxation Department and form No. 38 etc., Audit Report Form No. 3CA, Ledger of Cartage Inward, remand report by ITO and reply of assessee to the remand report submitted by the AO before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR pointed out further that under similar facts and on identical issue the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Global Business India (P) Ltd. , a group company has upheld the deletion of similar addition of Rs. 5.62 crores made by the Ld. CIT(A). A copy of this order dated 24.8.2012 of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Global Business India (P) Ltd. (supra) has been made available on the record. He submitted that the AO did not provide the copy of statement recorded by the investigation wing of the department used adversely against the assessee to the assessee nor the sales tax report etc. to the assessee on which the AO placed reliance. He submitted further that the authorities below have also failed to appreciate that out of total purchase of sandalwood of 72,673.900 Kgs only goods of 4000 KGs was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. The other evidences such as, the freight receipts for bringing the goods inside the factory by citing the vehicle number etc., their entry in the stock register, purchases against For No. ST- 38 issued by Excise and Trade Department of Haryanas and subsequent assessment by Excise and Trade Department of the purchases and sale of the assessee company are the evidences which cannot be ignored. These evidences have clearly shown the authenticity of the purchases. It has also been noticed that on the same facts and same circumstances, in the assessment of the main companies of the assessee where huge purchases were made, no adverse view has been taken by the Assessing Officer and by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal). In the present case the purchase as compared to the other group companies are negligible. It is also a fact that the existence of the vendor party which has sold the goods to the assessee company is doubtful and appeared to have been issued the accommodation entries only but this fact stands alone cannot make the purchase bogus. Furthermore, the sales have been accepted expenditure corresponding to it have also to be accepted. The motive to procure the purchase bill a....