2017 (8) TMI 276

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as per our considered opinion, there are two substantial grounds of appeal are (1) Whether the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the re-opening of assessment. (2) Whether the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming a sum of Rs. 9,18,317/- (30%) out of Rs. 30,61,058/- on account of bogus purchases. Rest of the grounds of appeal is argumentative in nature. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for relevant AY on 24.09.2010. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1). Subsequently, the case was re-opened on the information received from Sales Tax Department and DGIT (investigation) Mumbai that assessee obtained the accommodation entries in the form of purchases from bogus traders which are in the business providing b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ies. It was argued that the assessee remained in regular business with M/s Chemic Age Enterprises in earlier as well as in subsequent year. The affidavit from M/s Chemic Age Enterprises was also filed before the lower authority confirming the business with them. The AO has not provided opportunity to cross-examine the parties, which stated to have issued bogus bill, the additions were made on the basis of Sales Tax Authorities information i.e. the third party information without verifying the correctness. The Ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. M/s Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 5604/2010 dated 17.12.2012 and decision of Mumbai Tribunal in ACIT vs. Shri Ramila Pravin Shah in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sessee failed to discharge the primary onus that purchases are bonafide and disallowed the entire purchases of these two parties. The ld. CIT(A) while considering the appeal uphold the re-opening of the assessment holding that a notice u/s 148 was issued on the basis of fresh information and tangible material and thus the re-opening was valid. On the grounds of addition/disallowance the ld. CIT(A) observed that assessee failed to produce the parties, no alternative address was filed in respect of said parties. The AO confronted all the material and finding to the assessee. Moreover, the information of Sales Tax Department was available on the Website and it was in the public domain. The assessee failed to bring the actual transportation and....