2021 (6) TMI 439

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inafter referred to as "Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order dated 16.05.2018 without providing the Appellant an appropriate opportunity of being heard. Thus, the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is against the principals of natural justice and the same may be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. A.0. in making the addition of Rs. 1,05,13,876/-treating the same as bogus purchases without appreciating the fact that the purchases was duly accounted in the books of the appellant. Hence, treating the purchases as bogus and thereby making addition of Rs. 1,05,13,876/- under section 69C of the Act is unjustified and the same may be deleted. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) further erred in confirming the action of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Hawala Parties Amount in Rs. Viraj Steel & Alloys 5,00,000 Montex Industries 10,00,000 Stelco Steel Industries 10,04,087 Rolex Trading Company 26,06,198 Siddhivinayak Steel 150,30,375 Chanchal Tube Corporation 22,99,999 Ujjwal Sales Corporation 59,68,391 Surat Tube Corporation 52,00,474 Asian Steel 95,50,003 Atlas International (I) 3,17,637 Jagdish Enterprises 53,00,006 Nandkishor Sales Agency P. Ltd. 2,12,562 Remi Trading Co. Ltd. 7,00,391 Nirma Metal Industries 3,00,009 Rishabh Steel Industries 5,06,183 Key stone tubes P. Ltd. 12,35,881 Raj Impex 28,35,684 BP Shah And Co. 1,50,001 Bajarangi Steel & Metal P. Lt. 5,04,438....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....A. No.2212/Mum/2018 for the A.Y.2009-10 dated 14.12.2018, therefore, accordingly, the issue is required to be decided in favour of the assessee. The copy of order is on the file. The relevant finding has been given in para no. 6 which is hereby reproduced as under.:- "6. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. It is evident, the assessing officer had specific information in his possession to indicate that certain purchases made by the assessee in the impugned assessment years are not genuine. It is also evident, the assessee could not conclusively prove that the purchases claimed to have been made from the declared source are genuine. However, the departmental authorities have not disputed the sales eff....