TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 240
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eproduced as under: "4.a) Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.3,75,87,293/- made by the Assessing Officer treating the purchases amounting to Rs.3,75,87,293/- as unexplained expenditure under Section 69 C of the IT Act,1961." 2. The ITAT, by the impugned order dated 5th October 2016 confirms the order dated 9th May 2013 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), in Appeal No. CIT (A)-35/DCIT-25(3)/ITA.164/2012-2013, which order disallows additions made by the Assessment Officer in order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 28th December 2012. By the said order dated 28th Decembe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gating to Rs. 3,75,87,293/- should not be treated as his unexplained expenditure and charge to Tax. 4. From the order of the Assessing Officer, it further transpired that the respondent participated in the assessment proceedings and filed his reply to the show cause notice, wherein he has specifically taken a defence, that all the payments to the five parties referred to in the show cause notice, from whom he had made purchases, were made by account payee Cheques/RTGS only, through genuine banking channels. The assessee, who deal in sale of Iron and Steel Sheets, as the proprietor of M/s Ispat Steel Supplies, further filed a chart before the Assessing Officer reflecting all the payments made by him through banking channels, specifying the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissioner of Income Tax has also considered the fact that the reliance on the affidavits of the suspicious suppliers was misplaced and does not constitute evidence, more so in the light of the fact that assessee was not given any opportunity to cross-examine the affiants / witnesses. In such, no reliance could be placed on such material which does not constitute evidence under the Indian Evidence Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax has further concluded that assessee had also produced on record to prove the genuineness of his case, the stock register maintained by him, clearly reflecting the purchases of goods from the parties and subsequent sales made in the course of his business. The Commissioner of Income Tax has held that merely be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t person would not suffice, to treat the purchases as bogus and make addition under section 69 C of the Act. Thus, we find that there are concurrent findings of fact in issues by the Commissioner of Income Tax and the ITAT. 8. We have heard learned counsel, Mr. Sharma for the appellant and Mr. Dalal for the respondent. We consider the submission made before us in the appeal. 9. For easy reference the provisions of Section 69 C of the Act are extracted hereunder: "69 C : Where in any financial year an assessee has incurred any expenditure and he offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure or part thereof or the explanation, if any, offered by him is not, in the opinion of the AO, satisfactory, the amount covered by expendi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were correctly arrived at on the basis of documentary evidence produced by the assessee. Learned counsel for the respondent cited before us a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vaman International (P) Ltd. (2020) 422 ITR 520 (Bom) to support his contention that in light of the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by two authorities below, after considering the material evidence to show that the purchases made by the assessee were genuine, this Court ought not to exercise jurisdiction vested in it under the Provisions of section 260 A of the Income Tax Act. 13. We have considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties and gone through the records before us. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... view expressed by the Tribunal. In fact, Tribunal has only affirmed the finding of the first appellate authority. Thus, there is concurrent finding of fact by the two lower appellate authorities. 19. This Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nijunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom); wherein an identical fact situation arose did not interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and held that no substantial question of law arose from such order. It was held that merely because the suppliers had not appeared before the AO, no conclusion could be arrived at that the purchases were not made by the assessee." 15. In our opinion, the CIT as well as ITAT have concurrently concluded, on a matter of fact that the transactions entered ....