2024 (7) TMI 965

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ommissioner of Income Tax-20(1), Mumbai (in short ld. AO), order passed under section 143(3)r.w.s. 147, date of order- not specified. 2. The Revenue has taken the following grounds: - "1. The Id. CIT (A) erred in holding that the jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act was rightly assumed by the AO. 2. The Id. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating ground no.2 of Grounds of Appeal raised before him with regard to validity of addition made u/s 69 C of the Act. 3. The Id. CIT(A) erred in dismissing ground no.3 of Grounds of Appeal raised before him challenging the merits of the disallowance made by the AO of alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 2220594/-. 4. The Id. CIT (A) erred in not adjudicating the without prejudice ground no.5 of Ground of Appeal ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... back the entire disputed purchase amount u/s 69C of the Act. The ld. AR has drawn our attention on the relevant paragraph of assessment order which is reproduced below: - Hawala Tin Hawala Name Hawala PAN F.Y. Amount (In Rs. ) 27450526556V DEV ENTERPRISES ACGPG0684C 2010-11 199,059 27630780500V BANJARA ENTERPRISES AGKPM3256C 2010-11 457,095 27450597851V VIHOL ENTERPRISES AFFPV2972L 2010-11 515,277 27440573073V PADMAVATI ENTERPRISES ACUPL8372L 2010-11 1,048,300       TOTAL 22,20,594 3. As per the above information received from the Directorate of Investigation, Mumbai during the previous year 2010-11 relevant to A.Y. 2011-12, the assessee has taken bogus bills amounting to Rs. 22,20',594/- ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....133(6) of the Act to the alleged parties; they remained unserved by the postal authorities. Thereafter assessee was asked to produce the alleged parties to verify the genuineness of the purchases.; Assessee could not produce the parties. Further, it is noticed that the appellant -had only furnished invoices of purchase and sales and ledger account to substantiate the claim of relevant purchases as genuine. The invoice furnished by the appellant cannot be treated as genuine in view of the fact that the concerned parties had confessed before the Sales Tax. Authorities that they were in the business of issuing bills without actually 'selling any material. Moreover, it is seen that the appellant was unable to produce any supporting thir....