TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 797
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he same assessee, involving common issues and arising out of identical set of facts and circumstances, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. However, since the substantive order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) is the subject matter of appeal in ITA no.7444/Mum./2017, at the request of both the parties it was taken up as the lead appeal. Accordingly, we proceed to narrate the facts as they appear in ITA no. 7444/Mum./2017, for assessment year 2008-09. 3. Brief facts are, the assessee, a company, is stated to be carrying on business of trading in computer software. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ale of computer software by Basant Marketing Pvt. Ltd., DSTPL and the present assessee with HFCL, Radio Vani Holding Pvt. Ltd. and Premier Supplies and Services Pvt. Ltd. had taken place. Further, he observed, the assessee has not furnished any evidence to show Value Added Tax (VAT) payment by DSTPL. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid facts and information available with him, the Assessing Officer ultimately concluded that the transaction relating to purchase of computer software from DSTPL amounting to Rs. 5,28,44,480, is bogus, hence, added back to the income of the assessee as unexplained purchases. The assessee challenged the aforesaid addition before the first appellate authority. 4. After considering the submissions of the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted, in response to such notice, the concerned parties have also furnished their reply confirming the transactions with the assessee. He submitted, though, in the assessments completed in case of DSTPL the Assessing Officer had treated the sales made to different parties as bogus, however, learned Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the appeal of DSTPL has accepted the sales made by it to different parties as genuine. He submitted, the aforesaid decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld by the Tribunal while dismissing the appeal filed by the Department. In this context, he drew our attention to the order passed by the Tribunal in DSTPL from the assessment year 2005-06 to 2009-10 placed in the paper book. Further, he submitted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...../2017, dated 09.11.2018; and v) Venktesh Securities Ltd. v/s ITO, ITA no.1498 TO 1501/Mum./2017, dated 21.12.2018. 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative. Undisputedly, on the basis of information received from CBI/ACB, the Assessing Officer has concluded that the transaction relating to purchase of software from DSTPL is bogus. Learned Commissioner (Appeals), while deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer, has relied upon his own order passed for the assessment year 2006-07. On a careful perusal of the order dated 4th October 2017, passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) in assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso, the assessee has furnished all the evidences like assessment year 2006-07 to prove the genuineness of the purchases. Even, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer and after verifying the same has deleted the addition. Undisputedly, while framing the assessments in case of DSTPL from the assessment year 2005-06 to 2009-10, the Assessing Officer has held the sales made to different parties, including the assessee, as non-genuine. However, while deciding the appeals filed by DSTPL, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the sales to be genuine. The Tribunal also has upheld the aforesaid decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding Revenue's appeals in ITA no.4399 to 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made additions. However, the appellate authorities after considering various evidences and material brought before them have held that the transactions relating to purchase and sales of computer software are genuine. In this context, we may refer to a number of decisions of the Tribunal cited before us by the learned Authorised Representative. It is also a fact, no cogent material/evidence has been brought on record by the Revenue to enable us to disturb the factual finding of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and take a view different from the view taken by the Tribunal in the decisions cited before us. Therefore, on overall consideration of facts and material on record as well as the decisions cited by learned Authorised Representative, we a....