AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (3) TMI 1003
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enditure made from various parties on account of purchases of raw material. 2. The Income-tax Officer passed the assessment order dated 26-3-1999, disallowing the expenditure to the extent of Rs. 26,73,663 in respect of ten parties, from whom the assessee had allegedly purchased the material. As per the Assessing Officer, the assessee had not produced the requisite documents establishing the purchase of raw material from the said ten parties. 3. The assessee filed appeal there against. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal vide his order dated 19-1-2001 and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. He, inter alia, observed in the said order that those ten parties, against whom inquiries are to be made, can be cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fresh order after making full inquiry and hearing the assessee. 4. In the second round the Assessing Officer allowed the expenses claimed in respect of payments made to five out of the aforesaid ten parties. In respect of remaining five parties it was found that three parties could not be served at given addresses but other two parties who had appeared, namely, proprietor of M/s. Bright Enterprises and proprietor of M/s. Shiv Shakti Painting Works, the Assessing Officer did not believe their version and dealt with their cases in the following manner:- Shri Hemant Kumar, Prop. Bright Enterprises attended the office of the undersigned in response to summons under section 131 of the Income-tax Act. He deposed that at present he has no b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case of M/s. Raj Enterprises, O.S. Industries, Apex Industries and Aries Enterprises, summons issued to these parties have been remained uncomplied with. Hence the transactions with these parties remained unverified and the assessee also fails to produce these parties for verification. 5. Appeal of the assessee against the aforesaid order, after losing in the CIT(A), has been allowed by the ITAT vide its Judgment dated 17-11-2006 and assailing that Judgment the present appeal is preferred under section 260A of the Income-tax Act. 6. The Tribunal has, in detail, explained the manufacturing process of the assessee which requires not only raw material but also some job work process. It is concluded therefrom that without the purchase o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sis of which she endeavoured to argue that Shri Hemant Kumar, the proprietor of Bright Enterprises, had given the statement which would not inspire confidence. She also highlighted that the bills produced by the assessee issued by the first five parties would show that they were in serial numbers and thus no sales were made by them to any other dealer/purchaser and it would create a suspicion about the genuineness of the said transactions. She also submitted that in respect of five parties where credence could be established, the Assessing Authority had fairly allowed the expenditure incurred in making payments to them. Her submission was that by generally explaining the manufacturing process and without dealing specifically with each case,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s were made to these parties by account payee cheques and these were duly credited in their Bank Accounts. If this is the reason which persuaded the Assessing Authority to allow deletion of the addition made earlier, we fail to understand as to how same reasons would not be applicable in other cases where expenditure was disallowed. 9. As noted above, even the proprietors of M/s. Bright Enterprises and M/s. Shiv Shakti Painting Works had made the statements that they had received the payment by means of Account Payee cheques and they had also specifically affirmed that they had been supplying the goods/raw material to the assessee. The assessee had itself produced the Bank statements of all these parties which successfully demonstrated t....