TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 1359
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7/M/2014 has raised the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting the addition to 25% of Rs. 79,68,784/- made on account of bogus purchases from 03 parties overlooking the fact that the entire purchases were bogus specially when the Ld.CIT(A) has himself held that the genuineness of the purchases has been upheld and that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions are non-genuine. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in overlooking the fact that the assessee failed to prove that the purchases were actually made from the above three parties, the said fictitious purchases were booked by the assessee in its P&L account in the name of the said parties and the source of alleged actual purchases if any had not been entered in the books of accounts and therefore, 100% of the bogus purchases disallowed ought to have been upheld. 3. The appellant craves leave to add amend alter or delete any ground of appeal. 4. The order of the CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer may be resto....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der of CIT(A) sustaining the addition to the extent of 25%, of aggregate of impugned purchases the assessee as well as Revenue filed these two appeals before us as per their Grounds of appeal(s). 3. We have heard ld Authorised Representative (AR) of assessee and ld Departmental Representative (DR) for Revenue and perused the material available on record. AR of the assessee argued that all purchases of assessee were genuine and the payments were made through banking transaction. During the reassessment proceeding, the AO issued notice to those parties. In response to the notice of the AO, all the parties submitted their reply dated 21.01.2013; the parties also furnished the photocopies of their reply to the assessee. The assessee further filed the photocopies of purchased bills, ledger accounts showing the transaction. The bank statement depicting the payment against the purchases through cross account payee cheque. The AO was relying upon the statement of Shri Rakesh Kumar M. Gupta, Prop. Of M/s Manoj Mills recorded u/s 131 on 23.02.2009 by ITO ward 14(3), Mumbai, wherein he allegedly admitted that no transaction of purchase and sale had been made by him and only accommodation bi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the addition to 25% may be quashed. 4. We have considered the rival contention of the parties and perused the material available on record. The AO made the re-opening of the assessment after recording the satisfaction. The assessee has not assailed the re-opening before us. While framing the assessment, AO inferred that certain parties were found to be none-genuine as they were providing only accommodation bills, the AO raised suspicion about the purchases from M/s Manoj Mills for Rs. 32,27,804/-, M/s Astha Silk Industries for Rs. 27,02,082/- and M/s Shree Ram Sales & Synthetics for Rs. 20,38,898/-. The notices were issued to the parties, the parties filed their reply but no documents to substantiate their sales were filed. As no documentary evidence was enclosed to prove the transaction. The AO relied upon the statement of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta which was recorded u/s 131 during the survey proceedings. The assessee was show-caused as to why these parties should not be treated as non-genuine. The assessee submitted his reply and contended that proprietor of all three concern have filed their reply, wherein they have already stated that the transaction are genuine and further cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....milar impugned purchases were also transacted through Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta (retracted later on) admitting that sales made to the parties are genuine. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal while relying the case of M/s Jitendra Harshadkumar & Co (supra) deleted the entire additions of bogus purchases. Further, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Pramit Textiles vs. ITO (supra) held as under:- "7. We have perused the assessment order and the order of CIT(A). We have also perused the order of the Tribunal Mumbai "I" Bench in the case of M/s. Jeetendra Harshadkumar Textiles in ITA No.771 and 2211/Mum/2011 for assessment year 2007-08 dated 21/11/2012. We find force in the contentions of the counsel that the facts and circumstances are identical though the figures may differ. The Tribunal had given its finding at para-8 on page-5 of its order which reads as under :- "8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us. It will be relevant to reproduce the letter received by the AO from Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, which is also reproduced in the assessment order: "1 am in receipt of your summons u/s. 131 of the I.T.Act. 1961 in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from the said party which has not been discarded by the AO. The addition sustained by Ld. CIT(A) is also on presumption basis. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that additions made by the AO deserves to be deleted in its entirety. We decide accordingly." 7.1 On identical facts, and issues, this Bench has decided the appeal in the case of M/s. C. Chotalal & Co. in ITA Nos. ITA No.3960 to 3967/Mum/2012 for Assessment years 2002-03 to 2009-10 dated 24/09/13 wherein one of us (the Accountant Member) is a party to the said decision. Since the facts and issues being identical, we have no hesitation in following the order of our co-ordinate Bench. Respectfully following the same all the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are accordingly dismissed. As we have seen that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the cases referred above has categorically noted that Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta when confronted with his statement has categorically rebutted his statement in course of cross-examination (though not appeared in the present case). And the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal ....