TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 173
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....77/- under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961." 2. The facts in brief of the case are that the premises of the assessee company were subjected to search and seizure action under section 132 of the income tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) on 30/07/2009 along with other connected assessees including the assessee namely "Gupta metal sheet private limited". The assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 5,82,900/- on 08/09/2010. Notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee within stipulated period. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee company was dealing in nonferrous metal. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 2,19,59,977/- in respect of following creditors....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot tried to repudiate the observations which formed the basis of the impugned addition by filing documentary evidences. The explanation put forth during appellate proceedings does not in any way give any confidence. It is for the assessee to furnish convincing reasons with material substantiation to controvert the findings of the AO. Thus I am afraid the credit worthiness as well as the genuineness of the transactions remains unsubstantiated. By merely showing transactions through banking channels and entries in the books of accounts cannot be said to be sufficient proof on the part of the assessee. The assigning of blank signed cheques with the assessee by the creditor cannot be considered a normal business practice. In fact, no prudent bu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the relevant material on record. We find that in identical facts and circumstances in the case of M/s Gupta Metal Sheet Private Limited (supra), the Tribunal has restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with following findings: "7. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on record. We would like to first deal the fourth proposition of the learned AR. The learned AR states that the assessee has already discharged its Burdon of proof regarding identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the creditor, however, the learned CIT(DR) has disputed this statement of the AR. We find from the order of the ld. CIT(A) that as regards to the identify, even permanent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is not clear from the facts before us and, thus we hold that as we have already restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer, the AO is directed to examine whether the purchases in the case have been found bogus or not and thereafter, he is directed to take action in view of the judgment of the CIT Vs Panchamdas Jain (supra) accordingly. As regards, the second proposition of the Id AR that part of the purchases from the creditor are only held as unexplained, we hold that the issue of examination whether the purchases in dispute are explained or not has been restored to the file of the AO for determination afresh, the proposition is thus rendered infructuous and not require our adjudication. As regards to the first proposition ....