TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 1193
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Assessing Officer. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that, assessee engaged in business of manufacturing of Injection Moulding machine, filed return of income on 02.10.2010 and 30.09.2011 declaring income of Rs..14,26,307/- and Rs..41,44,467/- for the A.Y. 2010-11 and A.Y. 2011-12 respectively, and the returns was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, Assessing Officer received information from the DGIT (Inv.,), Mumbai about the accommodation entries provided by various dealers and assessee was also one of the beneficiary from those dealers. The assessments were reopened U/s. 147 of the Act based on the information received from DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai, that the assessee has availed accommodation entries from various dealers who ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d A.Y. 2011-12 respectively as non-genuine. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) considering the evidences and various submissions of the assessee deleted the addition/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the Ld.CIT(A) and supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 5. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer. 6. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. On a perusal of the order of the Ld.CIT(A), we find that the Ld.CIT(A) considered this aspect of the matter elaborately with reference to the submissions of the assessee and the averments in the Assessment Order and following various judicial pronouncements dele....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ods were supplied vide Tax Invoice No. 033 dated 06.09.2010 for Rs. 3,37,50,000/- which is enclosed at page 219 with delivery challan at page 220 of the Paper Book. Referring to these documents, the Ld. AR submitted that these are actual sales made, for which the disputed goods under question were purchased. Similar issue was in question in A.Y.2009-10, for executing order from Department of Atomic Energy and the addition made by the AO was deleted by my predecessor based on the materials produced and evidenced. Thus the submissions of the appellant cannot be brushed aside in a casual manner when the fact remains that the material has been purchased and supplied for the projects of Government of India. 7.3.3 There are several judic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Further in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the alleged hawala parties have made submission before the AO through registered post. 7.3.5 It has been held by Bombay High Court in the case of Orient Trading Co. Ltd vs. CIT(49 ITR 723), Patna High Court in the case of Sarogi Credit Corporation Vs CIT (103 ITR 344), Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Qani Silk Palace (171 ITR 373), Allahbad High Court in the case of Daya Chand Jain Vaidya (98 ITR 280), it will not thereafter be for the assessee to explain further. The burden will shift on to the AO to show why the assessee's case cannot be accepted, but the same has not been discharged. 7.3.6 The issue of bogus purchases was consi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion is rendered as under:- Purchases were recorded in the regular books of account maintained. The purchases were supported by proper bills/vouchers. The appellant filed the necessary details regarding name, address, sales tax number. The payments were made through banking channels. Thus, the sales against purchases were not doubted. It is not the case ofAO that amounts paid for purchases had come back to the appellant AO had made addition merely on the ground that the suppliers were not located and they were not produced for examination. This is not a relevant factor and the addition made by the AO be deleted. 7.3.9 In the case of DCIT vs. Shri Rajeev G. Kalathil (Mum. ITAT) (ITA no. 6727/M/2012) (Copy enclosed)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses by the assessee. It is well settled that the assessment of any particular year cannot be based on mere suspicion, conjectures or surmises but on a legitimate basis from which a reasonable inference of any expenditure being of the disallowable nature could be drawn and that the initial burden of finding such material is on the AO as held by Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case of Bansidhar Onkarmall vs. CIT (1953) 23 ITR 353 (Orissa). The AO has, in the case of the appellant, made the disallowance without any substantial and irrefutable material. 7.3.12 To summarize, it is observed that the purchases are supported by proper invoices duly reflected in the books of accounts, the payments have been madeby account payee cheq....