TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 796
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and in law, the ld.CIT(A) erred in restricting of addition of Rs. 2,38,32,673/- to Rs. 37,63,260/- u/s 69C of the Act as profit on the bogus purchases without giving any reasons of reduction of disallowance." 2. "On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has grossly erred in not appreciating the fact that the notices under section 133(6) issued to parties from whom alleged bills were received were returned undelivered by the postal authorities and the assessee has also failed to produce the parties before the AO." 3. "On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating that the assessee has not produced any cogent evidence to substantiate the fact t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7,63,260/-, which was declared as additional income before the Settlement Commission. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the present appeal against sustaining the disallowance at Rs. 37,63,260/-. The assessee has filed a C.O. for deleting the entire disallowance. 3. We have heard ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for Revenue and ld. Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee and perused the material available on record. The ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of AO and would argue that in addition to the additional income offered by assessee before the Settlement Commission, certain percentage on account of bogus purchases may further be disallowed. The ld. DR argued that during the assessment proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Income-tax Settlement Commission to settle all the issues. The application of the assessee was accepted by Settlement Commission for consideration. However, the application of assessee was declared as invalid due to some technical reason and no settlement could be arrived. In support of C.O. ld. AR of assessee argued that ld. CIT(A) on the basis of declared additional income sustained the disallowance without giving any independent finding. It was argued that entire disallowance is liable to be deleted. 4. We have considered the rival contention of the parties and gone through the orders of authorities below. During the assessment proceeding, the AO asked the assessee to furnish the detail of the parties from the assessee has made the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rchases as non-genuine. The assessee dealt with various business dealers and parties and it is not her responsibility to trace all of them, the office of AO do not produce the party for cross-examination and the list of bogus/hawala dealer is not provided. The contention of the assessee was not accepted by AO holding that assessee could not produce delivery challan, Lorry receipt, mode of transportation, evidence of payment of Octroi and Stock Register etc. in support of genuineness of purchases. The AO further concluded that the affidavit, deposition and statement of hawala operators are enough to show that assessee did not purchase any goods or these entities are not carrying out any business. The Sales Tax Department has made a finding a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....these parties which are indicated by the Sales Tax Department through a procedure which appears to be technically correct on paper are in fact engaged in false billing for a fee/commission. The onus of proving the entire transactions to be genuine is definitely on the tax payer, when he is making the claim of purchase and especially in light of the doubt that has been raised by the enquiries conducted by the Sales Tax Department, the onus is even more on the tax payer to show that as far as he is concerned, he has discharged his tax related liabilities in an accurate manner. So therefore, while on one hand the AO may not had a clinching proof but the primary responsibility which is ensued on the tax payer has also not been discharged in ter....