TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 752
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28/12/2012 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 313.77 Lacs after certain addition as against returned income of Rs. 278.22 Lacs filed by the assessee on 25/09/2010. The assessee is a resident firm and was engaged as builders & developers in the impugned AY. 2. During assessment proceedings, upon receipt of certain information from Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra regarding suspicious dealers indulging in bogus purchase bills without delivering any material, it was noted that the assessee made aggregate purchase of Rs. 35,54,956/- from four such dealers, the details of which have been extracted in para-3.1 of the quantum assessment order. The copies of the material available w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... produced by the appellant. The A.O. has also not conducted any independent enquiries to establish his contention that the said purchases may be treated as bogus. Only the fact that delivery challans have not been produced or statement of the seller that no sale has been made is not sufficient to prove that the purchases at the end of the appellant were bogus. The same position is supported by a number of judgments. The most significant judgment in this regard is Hilux Automotive Pvt.Ltd. vs. ITO (2007) 163 Taxman 90 (Delhi) wherein it has been held that where the assessee established its claim by furnishing relevant bills, bank statements and considering the fact that without purchase of raw material and job work charges incurred, manufact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case of Standard Chartered Bank vs. Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 94 (SC) comes to the support of the appellant's argument. Same decision has been held in number of other judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as High Courts. In the result, the addition of Rs. 35, 54,956/- is hereby deleted. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. The assessee's cross-objections contest the assessment proceedings on legal grounds. However, the same has not been pressed before us by Ld. Authorized Representative for Assessee [AR], Shri. Hitesh P. Shah and therefore, dismissed in limine. 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative [DR], Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, submitted that the assessee miserably failed to substan....