TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 477
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed-off by this consolidated order. 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in not confirming the addition in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 10.01.2017 in the case of N. K. Proteins Ltd. wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the entire addition on account of bogus purchase?" 2. "Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition of unexplained expenditure of Rs. 76,68,201/- made on account of bogus purchase by the Assessing Officer and limiting it t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... natural justice. 3. The Id. CIT Appeal and Assessing Officer erred in making addition relying on investigation done by Sales Tax Department without doing any independent investigation. 4. The Id. CIT Appeal and Assessing Officer erred in making an addition based on statements taken by Sales Tax Department without providing a copy of the same or an opportunity of cross examination in violation of grounds of natural justice. 5. The Id. CIT Appeal and Assessing Officer erred in not considering the fact that the assessee has submitted all the evidences required to claim the expense of purchases. 6.The Id. CIT Appeal and Assessing Officer erred in stating that onus of producing the party was on the assessee in spite of the fact t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uineness of purchases, the AO had issued 133(6) notices to all parties and out which some parties are not responded or notices issued are returned inserved as listed by the AO in para 5.1 of his assessment order amounting to Rs. 1,32,27,342/-. The assessment has been completed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T.Act, 1961 on 24/03/2014 and determined total income of Rs. 83,57,460/-, after making additions of Rs. 76,68,201/- towards peak amount of investments made for unproved or alleged bogus purchase from those parties. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assesee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assesse has reitrated his arguments made before the ld. AO. The sum and substance of arguments of the assessee before....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee before the lower authorities that purchases from the above party are supported by necessary evidences. It has furnished all possible evidences, including books of accounts; stock details and bank statement to prove that payment against said purchases have been made through proper banking channels. 7. Having considered arguments of the Ld. DR and also, material available on record, we find that both the sides have failed to prove the case in their favour with necessary evidences. Although, assessee has filed certain basic evidences, but failed to file further evidences to conclusively prove purchases to the satisfactions of the Ld.AO. At the same time, the Ld. AO had also failed to take the investigation to a logical conclusion....