TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 640
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eived from the Investigation Wing, vide letter F.No.DGIT/(Inv)/Carr.Field /2012-13, dated 26.12.2012, communicated vide letter F No.CIT-14/Corr. Field /2012-13 dated 27.12.2012 of CIT-14, Mumbai Office of DGIT, that the Sales Tax Department, Mumbai has identified bogus billers/accommodation entry providers and have recorded their statements; and that the Sales Tax Department has provided the list of bogus billers/ accommodation entry providers and the beneficiaries who have utilized the services of these bogus billers. In the said letter it has been mentioned that the assessee has taken accommodation entries of bogus purchases from three parties, i.e., (1) M/s Seva Enterprises Rs. 81,640/-(2) M/s Motion Traders Pvt.Ltd.Rs.1,08,859/- and (3)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red the facts of the case and submission made. The appellant neither during the assessment nor during appeal has furnished quantitative details. It is not submitted that any stock register has been maintained and the quantitative details are reconciled. Therefore, this is a case where quantitative details are not furnished. Therefore, in absence of quantitative details and reconciliation, it has not been substantiated that any genuine purchase has been made by the appellant for the bogus bills obtained from these suppliers. Hence, the order of the AD is therefore upheld and this ground of appellant is dismissed. 4. The IInd ground of appeal is regarding addition of Rs. 1,06,875/- on account of Unexplained Expenditure in the case of Return....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e State Sales Department and the statements of the parties, as recorded by the Sales Tax Department. The Id. CIT(A) has also confirmed the addition made by the AO. I find from the record that though the assessee has provided documentary evidences but these documents have not been considered by the authorities below and they made the addition only on the basis of third person evidence without giving any opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, in view of this legal and factual aspect, I feel that if the assessee be given opportunity before the AO to substantiate its case, it will meet the ends of justice and no prejudice would be caused to the revenue. It is seen that this Tribunal has considered an identical issue in the case of Deepak Popat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and Co V/s ACIT in ITA No.2959/Mum/2014 (AY-2010-11) dated 28.11.2014; b) DCIT V/s Shri Rajeev G Kalathil in ITA No.6727/Mum/2012 (AY-2009-10) dated 20.8.2014; and c) Shri Ganpatraj A Sanghavi V/s ACIT in ITA No. 2826/Mum/2013 (AY-2009-10) dated 5.11.2014 In all the above said cases, the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal has held that the AO was not justified in making the addition on the basis of statements given by the third parties before the Sales Tax Department, without conducting any other investigation. In the instant case also, the assessing officer has made the impugned addition on the basis of statements given by the parties before the Sales tax department. We notice that the ld.CIT(A) has taken note of the fact that no s....