TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 200
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....income of Rs. 38, 79, 76, 980/-. A revised return of income was filed on 30. 09. 2011, declaring total income of Rs. 38, 26, 36, 760/-. The Assessing Officer (AO)completed the assessment, u/s. 143(3) of the Act, on 27. 02. 2013, determining the income of the assessee at Rs. 38. 55 Crores. 2. The effective Ground of appeal is about addition of Rs. 11, 57, 884/- made by the AO in respect of purchases. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO sought information from suppliers u/s. 133(6) of the Act with regard to local purchases made by the assessee company. Letter issued to one of the parties, namely M/s. Meetali Industries(MI)returned back unserved. It was also found that name of the said party appeared in the list of bogus suppl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had admitted before the sales tax authorities that he had never supplied goods, that he had issued accommodation bills only, that payments through cheques was not a conclusive evidence of purchase of goods. Finally, he held that purchases made from MI of Rs. 11. 57 lakhs were not genuine and added the said sum to the total income of the assessee. 3. Before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) the assessee submitted that it had submitted the copies of purchase bills, ledger accounts, GRN, bank statements, evidences of sales/consumption of the materials purchased from MI during the assessment proceedings, that the AO had not supplied copy of the statement given to the sales tax authorities by the MI, that no opportunity was given to confront/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee, that payment was made through banking channels, the supplier of the goods was assessed to tax, that all the details and documentary evidences were made available to the AO. He referred to the cases of Rajeev G. Kalathil(ITANo. 6727/Mum/2012, dated 20. 08. 2014, A. Y. 2009-10);Shri Rajkumar Agarwal(ITA No. 5233/M/2013, dated 10. 04. 2015, A. Y. 2010-11);Mohammedi Z. Kanchwala (ITA No. 3834/M/2013, dated 06. 05. 2016, A. Y. 2009-10) and iv) Ramesh Kumar & Co. (ITA No. 2959/M/2014, dated 28. 11. 2014, A. Y. 2010-11). The Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the AO and the FAA. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that the assessee had purchased goods from MI, that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee were accepted in toto by the AO. Documentary evidences produced by the assessee were not rebutted by AO/the FAA. The FAA had not given any reason for rejecting the various documents. Both the authorities have gone only by the enquiries by the Sales tax Department. The information received from the Maharashtra Govt. was a good starting point for making further enquiries. But, the AO instead of making enquiries rejected the evidences produced by the assessee without rebutting them. We find that in the case of Rajiv G. Kalathil (supra), the issue of bogus purchases and evidentiary value of inquiry made by sales tax authority was examined. We would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the said case which reads as follows: "2. 4. We ....