TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 540
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....008 : 3. This appeal by assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-XIX, New Delhi, Dated 07.06.2010, for the A.Y. 2007-2008, challenging the addition of Rs. 17,45,000/- on account of bogus purchases. 4. The facts of the case are that assessee company filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 2,46,437/-. During the year under consideration the assessee company carried out the business of trading of Gold and Diamond Jewellery, silver items, saree and other items. Information from the Jaipur Investigation Wing was received that certain persons were issuing bogus bills and were charging 0.5% commission on the same. Shri Anil Kumar Lalwani, of Johari Bazar, Jaipur has stated on oath before the Investigation Wing Jaipu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out through documentary evidences, therefore actual purchases have been made. Therefore, there is no unaccounted purchases. The A.O. however, in view of the report of Jaipur Investigation Wing considered the entire purchases made by assessee from his unaccounted money/undisclosed source and made the addition of Rs. 22,00,016/-. 5. The assessee challenged the addition before the Ld. CIT(A) and same submissions were reiterated. It was also submitted that A.O. has drawn adverse inference on the basis of ex-parte statements of the sellers, when the entire transaction stands corroborated by independent material. The assessee conducted all the transactions through banking channel and through sales tax. The declaration form U.P. Trade Tax Rules ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the ex-parte material, no addition could be made. Since all the transactions have been disclosed to the Trade Tax Authorities, therefore, no addition could be made against the assessee. In support of the same, he has relied upon certain decisions, copies of which are filed in the paper book. In the alternate contention, he has submitted that at the most profit element embedded in the alleged purchases should have only be added, therefore, entire addition is liable to be deleted. 7. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Order of the A.O. and submitted that since copy of the statement of Shri Anil Kumar Lalwani and material collected by Jaipur Investigation Wing have not been supplied to the assessee, therefore, matter may be remande....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....13 (SC). Since statement of Shri Anil Kumar Lalwani was recorded by Investigation Wing, Jaipur was also not provided to the assessee and no cross-examination have been allowed to his statement on behalf of assessee, therefore, such statement can also be not read in evidence against the assessee. We rely upon Judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries [2015] 281 CTR 214 (SC). There is no other adverse material against the assessee on record, therefore, there were no justification to sustain any addition against the assessee. It may also be noted here that Investigation Wing has provided information to the A.O. that assessee made purchases from above two parties of Rs. 22,00,016/-, however, the actual purc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....horities below and delete the addition of Rs. 17,45,000/-. Ground of appeal of assessee allowed. 9. In the result, ITA.No.3521/Del./2010 of the assessee allowed. ITA.No.2819/Del./2014 - A.Y. 2007-2008 : 10. This appeal by assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-XIX, New Delhi, Dated 14.03.2014, for the A.Y. 2007-2008, challenging the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 11. Since the addition on account of bogus purchases have been deleted in ITA.No.3521/Del./2010 which is the basis for levy of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, we are of the view that no penalty is leviable against the assessee. In view of this, we set aside the Orders of the authorities below and cance....