TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 520
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeals) erred in passing the order without appreciating the submissions of the assessee. 2. The appellant prays that the addition of Rs. 42,90,805/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases be deleted." 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of export of I.T. & I.T. enabled services. The assessee filed return of income on 14.10.2010 declaring income of Rs. 7,91,720/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) and thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notice u/s. 143(2) dated 27.09.2011 was issued and duly served upon the assessee. During the assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had made huge amount of purchase totaling Rs. 42,90,585/- from two parties at the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prove the identity and genuineness of the above purchase transactions. Vide order sheet entry dated 07/3/2013 the assessee was specifically asked to either produce both the parties or give correct postal address falling which the impugned purchase would be treated as bogus. However, there was no response and neither the suppliers were produced nor current postal addresses were furnished. Besides, the assessee was also asked to produce complete books of account along with supporting bills and vouchers which were never produced before the A.O. However, assessee merely produced copy of ledger account and thus the assessee was once again asked to produce complete books of account which was never produced before the A.O. for the reasons known to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aji Enterprises though NEFT on the last day of financial year i.e. 31.03.2010 and balance amount is shown as sundry creditors. Taking all the above into consideration and in the light of AO's finding I am convinced that AO has made enquiries to bring on record sufficient material to challenges the genuineness of the purchases from both the parties whereas on being confronted the assessee has not been able to rebut/controvert above findings. Besides, the assessee has also failed to produce complete books of accounts along with bills and vouchers. Further the AO has also pointed out certain discrepancies with respect to purchase and ledger accounts of above two suppliers which have not been contested by the assessee in the assessment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the backdrop of the issue. * The bills of both firms are computer generated and prepared on same computer. Nowadays, all the bills are generated from the computers and there was no evidence on record to prove that the bills are prepared on the same computer. * Bills Font & Design are the same of both the firms. No adverse inference can be drawn on such issue. * No telephone Numbers are mentioned in both the bills. No adverse inference can be drawn on such issue. * Surprisingly it was noticed that the TIN Number of both the parties are same mentioned i.e. 09165706399. which clearly indicates that all these bills are bogus. The TIN number referred by the ld. CIT(A) belon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have gone through the report of the Inspector with regard to M/s Ganpati Trading Company wherein he met the wife who replied that "my husband is running the business of computer but I don't know in detail." She has also provided mobile number of Sh. Ram Prakash to the Inspector. The total export sales was Rs. 1,84,18,698/- and the total purchases of Rs. 42,90,805/- from these two parties only. The AO has treated the entire purchases as bogus while accepting the export sales of Rs. 1,84,18,698/- There could not have been any export without purchase of material. The material purchased as per the invoices is as under: Name of the firm Description of goods Invoice No. Date QTY Amount M/s Balaji Enterprises Content Manag....