2017 (11) TMI 1349

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....state, property dealer, etc. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee filed its return of income on 30th September 2010, declaring income of Rs. 4,42,39,520. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer for verifying the purchases claimed to have been made by the assessee of Rs. 15.97 crore called for necessary details. After verifying the list of dealers from whom the assessee claimed to have made the purchases, the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 133(6) of the Act to the concerned parties to verify the genuineness of the purchases made by the assessee. As observed by the Assessing Officer, most of the notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act to some of the parties returned back un-served with the po....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....count of bogus purchases. Grounds no.6 to 9 are challenging the addition of Rs. 14,96,899, towards unverifiable purchases and ground no.10 to 12 are on the addition made of Rs. 95,690 by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on account of commission expenses for obtaining bogus bills. 5. Learned Authorised Representative submitted, the assessment order was passed without following due process of law. He submitted, though, the Assessing Officer relied upon the statement of the parties given before the Sales Tax authorities, however, neither such statements were provided to the assessee nor the assessee was given opportunity to cross-examine to them. Therefore, there is violation of rules of natural justice. He submitted, in the course of ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Sales Tax authorities that they were providing accommodation bills only without actual delivery of goods. One more reason for making the addition by the Assessing Officer is, the notices issued under section 133(6) could not be served on the parties due to their own availability in given address. The Assessing Officer has further stated that the assessee was unable to prove the delivery of goods through documentary evidence. As against the aforesaid reasoning of the Assessing Officer the assessee's contention is that adverse materials relied upon by the Assessing Officer such as the statement of third parties given before the Sales Tax authorities were never confronted to the assessee nor the assessee was given opportunity to cross exam....