TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 541
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act, on 19/02/2013, determining its income at Rs. 1. 24 Crores. 2. Effective ground of appeal is about deleting the addition of Rs. 74. 28 lakhs. During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that assessee had made purchases of Rs. 74. 28 lakhs (Rs. 64. 98 lakhs from Nutan Metal + Rs. 9. 29 lakhs from Magnitude Trading Private Ltd. ) from two parties, that as per the information received from the Sales Tax Department (STD) the purchases made by the assessee from the above referred to parties were bogus, that the suppliers, in the statement given before the STD, had admitted that they had only provided accommodation entries and no sales in term of any material had been made. He issued a show cause notice asking the assessee as to why....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed accommodation bills to the assessee. The FAA called for a remand report from the AO for carrying out a comprehensive enquiry. In his report dated 12/09/2013, the AO expressed his inability to carry out any enquiry as the notices were returned by the postal authorities with the remark "not known''. After considering the available material, the FAA held that the AO had received information from the STD, that the information was about bogus sales made and accommodation entries given by two specific suppliers, that he had received the information in general and not specifically in context of the assessee, that he had asked the assessee to produce the suppliers, that on failure of the assessee to present them before the view resulted in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....liers had made general statements, that the sales made by the assessee accepted by the AO. He relied upon the cases of Rajeev G Kalathi(ITA/6727/Mum/2012-AY. 2009-10, dtd. 20/08/2014), Deepak Popatlal Gala(ITA. s/5920/Mum/2013-AY. 2010-11, dtd. 27/03/2015) Ramila Praveen Shah(ITA/5246/Mumbai/2013, AY. 2010-11, dtd. 5/03/2015), Shivam Textile and Proofing Industries (ITA/5248/Mum/2013, AY. 2010-11, dtd. 16/07/2015)and Digitron Computers Private Ltd. (ITA. s. /160, 1406-07/Mum/2015-AY. s. 2010-11 to 2011-12, dated 06/01/ 2017). 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that the AO had made the addition on the basis of statements recorded by the STD from two of the suppliers of the assessee, that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents produced by the assessee had to be rebutted. In the case of Rajeev G. Kalathil Rajeev G. Kalathil (supra)the Tribunal has held as under: "2. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that AO had made the addition as one of the supplier was declared a hawala dealer by the VAT Department. We agree that it was a good starting point for making further investigation and take it to logical end. But, he left the job at initial point itself. Suspicion of highest degree cannot take place of evidence. He could have called for the details of the bank accounts of the suppliers to find out as whether there was any immediate cash withdrawal from their account. We find that no such exercise was done. ....