2018 (7) TMI 873

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../09/2012 admitting income of Rs. 2,00,34,421/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, statutory notices were issued and served on the assessee. 2.1 A search and seizure operation u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of Banwarlal Jain Group, a leading entry provider of Mumbai, was carried out by the Investigating Wing, Mumbai on 03/10/2013. As per the sworn statement given regarding beneficiaries of accommodation entries pertaining to Bogus Purchases by Ms. Banwarlal Jain Group, which is communicated to AO vide DIT(1nv)-lI, Hyderabad. It was noted from the information received that, the assessee-company made bogu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....udit Report in Form-3CA/3CD, copy of Form-26AS, details of TDS deducted party wise, copy of Bank Statement reflecting purchase transactions and proof of RTGS payments. In this regard, assessee placed reliance on the following ITAT orders: (i) ITO Vs. Sri Deepak Popattal Gala, in ITA No. 5920/Mum/2013, dated 27.03.2015. (ii) ACIT-21(1) Vs. Ramesh Kumar & Co, in ITA No. 2959/Mum/2014, dated 28.11.2014. 3. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal: 1) The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Hyderabad in confirming the additio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....IT Vs. M/s Larsco Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., 249/Hyd/2014 2. ITO Vs. Premanand, 25 SOT 11 ( ITAT, Jodh.) 3. Jagadamba Trading Co. Vs. ITO, 16 SOT 66 (Jodh.) 4. Multitex Filtration Engineers (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 13 SOT 208 (Del.) 5. CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd., 372 ITR 619 6. Mohanlal R. Daga Vs. ITO, 147 Taxman 28 7. CIT Vs. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd., 355 ITR 290 (Guj) 8. Prakash Chand Natha Vs. CIT, 301 ITR 134 (MP) 9. CIT Vs. MK Brothers, 163 ITR 249 (Guj.) 10. CIT Vs. Sunrise Tooling System P. Ltd., 361 ITR 206 (Guj.) 11. CIT Vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta and Vijay Gupta, 303 ITR 95 (Del.) 12. Ramlila Pravin Shah, ITA No. 5246/Mum/20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s of bank statement all of which would indicate that the purchases were in fact made. In our view, merely because the suppliers have not appeared before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the respondent-assessee. The Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) have disallowed the deduction of Rs. 1.33 crores on account of purchases merely on the basis of suspicion because the sellers and the canvassing agents have not been produced before them. We find that the order of the Tribunal is well a reasoned order taking into account all the facts before concluding that the purchases of Rs. 1.33 crores was not bogus. No fault can be found with the order dated 30-04-2010 of the Tribunal." 7.2 In ....