TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 566
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....09-10 assessee challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in upholding the disallowance of purchases made from M/s. Mehul Traders and M/s. Rahul Traders. 3. Briefly stated the facts are that, in the course of the assessment proceedings Assessing Officer noticed that as per the information of investigation wing of the department M/s. Mehul Traders and M/s. Rahul Traders were providing accommodation entries and assessee is one of the beneficiary. Assessee was asked to furnish the details with regard to purchases made from M/s. Mehul Traders and M/s. Rahul Traders. Assessee submitted that it had purchased optical fiber cable for Rs..5,09,600/- from M/s. Mehul Traders and the same is capitalised in the books of accounts under the head "Furniture ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or, Assessing Officer treated the purchases as not verifiable and therefore genuineness of the purchases could not be established. Assessing Officer by observing that no evidences regarding physical delivery of materials such as stock register entry, delivery challans etc., have been produced by the assessee, he disallowed the purchases to the extent of Rs..5,20,033/- made from M/s.Mehul Traders and M/s. Rahul Traders. 6. On appeal the Ld. CIT(A) though accepted the contention of the Assessing Officer that the purchases were not genuine, the alternative submission of the assessee that since assessee has claimed only depreciation the entire purchases cannot be disallowed has been accepted and accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y against the Appellant. 5.3 Further, the A.O. has clearly noted in the assessment order that no evidence regarding the physical delivery of material, such as stock register entry, delivery challan etc. have been furnished by the appellant, to prove the genuineness of the impugned purchases. 5.4 I have also verified the details of M/s Mehul Traders & M/s Rahul Traders on the https://mahavat.gov.in/, which has been renamed as https://mahagst.gov.in/ and found that both the parties are appearing in the list of "Suspicious Dealers", who have issued false bills without delivery of goods. The details contained on the said website of Maharashtra Government are extracted below:- list of Suspicious Dealers who has issued false ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e any valid reason to interfere in the decision of the Ld. CIT(A), since the genuineness of the purchases could not be verified as the suppliers were not traceable in the addresses given as reported by the Inspector on his physical inspection, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly disallowed only to the extent to the deprecation on such purchases and deleting the rest of the disallowance of purchases. Thus, we sustain the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and reject the grounds raised by the assessee. 10. Coming to the appeal for the A.Y. 2011-12, the assessee challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in sustaining the reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act and also sustaining the addition of Rs..9,48,151/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of purchases m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had furnished copies of purchase orders, invoices, ledger copies, bank statements and therefore the purchases were genuine. It is submitted that Assessee has discharged its burden to prove the genuineness of the transactions by furnishing all the necessary evidences. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that except relying on the Sales Tax Department website the Assessing Officer has not made any enquiry whatsoever to prove that the purchases made by assessee were not genuine. It is submitted that Assessing Officer has not at all justified in treating the purchases as non-genuine solely based on the information of the Sales Tax Department without conducting any enquiry. 14. Ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 15. ....