TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 2420
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 14,30,963/- made by the appellant are not genuine and are not verifiable. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) is further wrong and has erred in confirming trading addition of Rs. 3,57,741/- made by the AO on account of alleged unverifiable purchases referred to in Ground No. 1() above. 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm and has filed the return of income on 30-09-2009 declaring total income of Rs. 9,99,800/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and an order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed by the AO on 26-12-2011 determining the income of the assessee at Rs. 13,86,340/- The AO observed that the assessee deals in the business of export of gem stones. The assessee has shown the sales, gross profit and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'4.1 I have considered submissions of the appellant and have also gone through the assessment order. It is noted that the AO has rejected the books of account on the ground that purchases from M/s. N.V. Gems & Jewellers and M/s. Rajshree Gems was found to be unverifiable. The assessee had failed to furnish any evidence before the AO to show that the purchases were genuine. Relying on the decision of M/s. Kanchwala Gems 134 ITAT Jaipur), the AO held that the appellant had failed to prove the purchased and accordingly rejected the books of account. Therefore, relying on the decision of Sanjay Oil Cake (10 DTR 153), he disallowed 25% of these purchases. 4.1 It is, however, noted that the disallowance of 25% of purchases on the basis of Sanja....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the AO doubted the creditworthiness of the suppliers without making any efforts to examine the genuineness of the transactions and has based his opinion and observation merely on the basis of information supplied by BCTT Wing. The assessee submitted that the AO has not doubted the payment made through account payee cheques and has alleged that purchases are unverifiable purchases merely because the said parties could not be produced before the AO. The ld. AR of the assessee relied on following decisions to this effect. (1) DCIT vs. Adinath Industries 252 ITR 476 (Guj.) (2) ACIT vs. Gem Stones, 26 TW 511 (ITAT Jaipur ) (3) Radha Mohan Agarwal s ITO , 30 TW 190 (ITAT Jaipur) (4) Om Metals & Minerals Ltd. vs. JCIT, 32 TW 54 (ITAT Ja....