TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 575
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....record perused. 4. Facts in brief are that AO got information from the Sales Tax Department regarding suspicious parties who are allegedly providing accommodation entries without doing any actual business. On going through the some claimed list, it was found that some of these parties are supplying the goods to the assessee. The AO asked the assessee to furnish all relevant evidence to have actually been delivered/supplied along with details of purchases claimed to have been made by the assessee including Name, Address, Contact Number etc. to prove the genuineness of the transaction. Further, the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the expenditure claimed in respect of purchases shown to have made from the aforesaid dealer should ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-11. Similar addition was also made in the A.Y.2011-12 by estimating profit at 5% of such alleged purchases. 8. By the impugned order, CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO against which assessee is in further appeal before us. 9. It was argued by learned AR, Mr. Tarun Ghia that the accounts of the assessee are audited u/s.44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. No adverse findings, observations have been reported by the auditor in connection with the purchases debited to profit and loss account. In fact the entire of the audit report is without any qualification or adverse comments implying that the genuineness of the entries in the books of account is fully established. The assessee has also furnished stock ledge/ for the entire relevant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h purchases are required to be made. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements in support of the proposition that no addition was warranted. (1) ITO vs. Shri Deepak Popatlal Gala inITANo.5920/Mum/2013 (A.Y 2010-11) dated 27/03/2015; (2) Ramesh Kumar and Co. V/s. ACIT in ITA No.2959/Mum/2014 (A.Y. 2010-11) dated 28/11/2014; (3) DCIT v/s. Shri Rajeev G. Kalathil in ITA No.6727/Mum/2012 (A.Y.2009- 10) dated 20/08/2014; (4) Shri Ganpatraj A. Sanghavi v/s. ACIT in ITA No.2826/Mum/2013 (A.Y.2009-10) dated 5/11/2014; and (5) Shri Hiralal chunilal Jain vs. Income Tax Officer in No.4547/Mum/2014 dated 01/01/2016. 11. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Jurisdictional High Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave also deliberated on the judicial pronouncements referred by lower authorities in their respective orders as well as cited by learned AR and DR during the course of hearing before me in the context of factual matrix of the case. In the instant case, I found that on the basis of information from Sales Tax department, AO has initiated reassessment proceedings and called for various details about the purchases made by the assessee. In response to the same, assessee has furnished purchase bills, delivery challans, bank statement showing payment made to the parties, confirmation of the respective parties, ledger account of the purchase party, copy of stock register, copy of transportation bills and copy of delivery challans. Assessee has also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that assessee should be given due opportunity to defend itself i.e., they should be supplied the material that is proposed to be used against them. In respect of violation of principles of natural justice, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber (supra) observed as under:- "...According to us,not allowing the assessee to cross examine the witness by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity in as much as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. It is to be borne in mind that the order of Commissioner was based upon the statements given ....