TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 774
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') against the order dated 16th May, 2014 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in ITA No. 2685/Del/2012 for the Assessment Year ('AY') 2008-09. 2. The question of law urged by the Revenue is whether the ITAT was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 19,39,60,866 pertaining to the alleged bogus purchases ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n addresses, the said entity was found to be non-existent. Accordingly, the AO concluded that PRPL was only used as a conduit to inflate the expenditure of the Assessee. On account of the bogus purchase, the aforementioned addition was made by the AO. 5. Aggrieved by the above order, the Assessee went in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ['CIT(A)']. The above addition was de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed. ii. The facts taken into consideration by the CIT (A) were supported by the relevant documents filed in the paper book. All details of the transportation of goods were found mentioned in the invoices, accompanied by the GRs enclosed therewith. The fact that PRPL did not have godown facilities had no relevance in the face of the documents issued by the statutory authorities which were dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed evidence for each of the said 23 parties. This was examined afresh by the ITAT. iv. No material was placed on record by the Revenue to counter the profit & loss and bank details along with confirmed copies of account sales invoices produced by the Assessee. These documents, therefore, could not be disregarded. In fact, the AO had examined the bank accounts of not only PRPL but also of the 23....