TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 683
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1961, (the 'Act'). 2. The grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue read as under : 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the caseand in law, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,88,768/- made by the AO on account of bogus purchases without appreciating the fact that assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the purchases. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT is requested to entertain this appeal though the tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed in the CBDT instruction no.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 as amended on 20.08.2018 as the case falls in the exception provided in para 10(e) of the said instruction in as much as the addition is based on information received....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs, invoices, lorry receipts, check post entries, gate entries, goods receipt notes, issue of material, production record of consumption, delivery challans, Octroi charges in relation to the goods supplied to the assessee from A.Y. 2009-10 to till date. 3. Extract of Bank Statement(s) reflecting the relevant entries in relation to transactions with the assessee company till date. 4. Copy of ledger account in relation to the assessee company from A.Y. 2009-10 to till date. 5. Details of goods purchased by the assessee, which were supplied to the aforesaid parties, along with copy of purchase bill and ledger account of the parties from whom goods were purchased. As recorded by the AO, the assessee vide its letter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....19, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of Rs. 1,88,768/- made by the AO by observing that : "4.4.1 I have considered the rival contentions. I find that the AO has relied entirely on the information received from the DGIT investigation. In the course of reassessment proceedings, the AO could not point out any discrepancy in the appellant's books of account or records. Nor has the AO pointed out any noncompliance or default on the part of the appellant in furnishing any information or document called for. In the course of assessment proceedings the AO issued notice under section 133(6) calling for information from Jay Enterprise. The AO has stated that Jay Enterprise did not furnish information. It appears from the tenor of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ia Fabric (P.) Ltd. (supra), it is held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court that "where information was received by the Assessing Officer to the effect that eight parties from whom purchases were made by the assessee, engaged in job work of dying of fabrics were hawala dealers who had issued bogus bills and he treated aforesaid purchases as bogus purchases, since without purchase of materials, it was not possible for assessee to complete job work of dying and entire purchases could not be added as bogus, profit element embedded in such transaction had to be added to total income of assessee." As mentioned earlier, the AO had informed vide letter dated 01.02.2016, the assessee of the nature of transactions by enclosing a copy of the sworn st....