TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 21
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....92,43,370/- made on account of bogus purchases on the basis of self serving documents produced by the assessee without appreciating the fact that these alleged suppliers were non-existent at the addresses, not engaged in genuine business activities suppliers were declared as hawala dealers by the Maharashtra Sales-tax Department on the basis of on the spot enquiries conducted and statements recorded on various parties? 6.2 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,92,43,370/- made on account of bogus purchases merely stating that payments were made through banking channel and without appreciating the fact that payment by account payee cheque itsel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TAT. ITAT dismissed Revenue's appeal and allowed respondent's appeal. The ITAT relied on a judgment of the co-ordinate bench of the ITAT in the case of M/s. MPIL Steel Structure Limited V/s. DCIT (ITA No.6602/Mum/2014) for Assessment Year 2011-2012, wherein similar issue was involved and deleted the addition towards bogus purchases. Unhappy with the conclusions of the ITAT, this appeal has been preferred. 3. We are inclined to agree with the opinion of the ITAT. In making the addition, the Assessing Officer has primarily relied upon some information received from the office of the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Mumbai regarding bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer has also relied upon a notification issued by the Sales....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of cheques and later on cash withdrawn from the banks and after deduction of agreed commission balance money was returned in cash. The Assessing Officer says his statement is available on website and same is treated as an evidence to justify the issue involved in the case. It is also stated by the Assessing Officer that the notice issued to these three parties under Section 133 (6) of the Act remained unserved because they are not available/traceable. It is also stated that by an office order sheet noting dated 19th March 2013, respondent was requested to produce the said parties before officer for verification but respondent did not produce them. 4. It is respondent's case that they purchased various gift article for promoting sales a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n been challenged and no substantial question of law has been proposed. 5. On the Assessing Officer's conclusions, we also observed that admittedly the three parties are private limited companies. The Assessing Officer does not mention anywhere to which address the notice under Section 133 (6) of the Act was sent because being a company, certainly the records in the office of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs or the Registrar of Companies will indicate the address of the registered office of these three entities. The Assessing Officer only says the notices remained unserved because companies are not available/traceable. That is neither here nor there because the Assessing Officer should have stated why the notices were not served - Was i....