TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 890
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or A.Y. 2010-11 on 24.09.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 52,93,,655/-. On the basis of information from the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra, it was found by the Assessing Officer (AO) that certain dealers are providing accommodation entries/bills without doing any actual business for a commission. On going through the list of bogus dealers listed in the website of the Sales Tax Department, it was found that the assessee had made purchases from the following dealers; the details of which are as under: - S.No. Name of alleged Supplier Amount of alleged purchase (Rs. ) 1 M/s. Hiten Enterprises Rs. 1,46,17,686/- 2 M/s. Rushabh Enterprises Rs. 58,23,655/- 3 M/s. Shree Traders Rs. 44,69,575/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der dated 28.12.2012 wherein the assessee's income was determined at Rs. 4,29,80,520/-. 3.1 Aggrieved by the order of assessment for A.Y. 2010-11 dated 28.12.2012, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)-35, Mumbai. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee reiterating the stand taken before the AO, and in order to prove the purchases placed before the learned CIT(A) the evidence earlier filed before the AO; such as copies of purchase bills, copies of bank statements to show that payments to these parties for the said purchases have been made by account payee cheques, copies of stock register to show that the goods were received from these parties. It was submitted that the sales effected in respect of these purchases have not b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....noring the evidences placed before him. The learned CIT(A), inter alia, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (Bom) deleted the addition of Rs. 3,75,87,293/- made by the AO under section 69C of the Act vide the impugned order dated 09.05.2013. 4.1 Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A)-35, Mumbai dated 09.05.2013 for A.Y. 2010-11, Revenue has preferred this appeal raising the following grounds: - "(i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,75,87,293/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the I.T. Act, by treating the purchases as genuine. (ii) On the fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pugned order of the learned CIT(A), deleting the additions on account of bogus purchases of Rs. 3,75,87,293/- made by the AO under section 69C of the Act. It was submitted that, the assessee to prove the genuineness of purchase transactions had produced material evidence in the form of purchase bills issued by these parties, copies of bank statements to establish that the said purchases were made through banking channels, copies of stock register to show receipt of the said material purchased from these parties, confirmations from two of the three parties in respect of the said purchases. It is contended that, on the contrary, the AO has not brought on record even a shred of evidence to prove the said purchases were bogus and in coming to a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, Shri Rajendra Dodhiwala (Prof. Rushabh Enterprises ) held the said purchases to be bogus. While it may be true that the said three parties did not appear before the AO, for whatever reason, the fact remains that the assessee itself had filed conformations for purchases from two of the three parties, copies of purchase bills, copies of bank account statements to show payment for the same were through banking channels, copies of stock register to show that the material from these parties had been received, etc. to establish the genuineness of these purchases. It is a fact on record that the AO has not doubted the sales effected by the assessee and therefore, it is in order to conclude that without corresponding purchases being effected, th....