2023 (7) TMI 1469

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8 came up for hearing on or about 4th August 2022 and by a judgment pronounced on 21st October 2022 these two appeals were disposed. The judgment pronounced on 21st October 2022 reads as under : Both these appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") challenge the order dated 05 th  July, 2017, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench "B", Pune ("ITAT") in Income Tax Appeal No.1408/PUN/2015 relevant to the assessment year 2010-11 and Income Tax Appeal No.1409/PUN/2015 relevant to the assessment year 2011-12, respectively, whereby the appeals filed by the Revenue have been dismissed. 2. The facts and issues arising in both these appeals are identical, however, for the sake of deciding the issue, refe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....me Court's judgment dated 16.01.2017 in the case of N.K. Proteins Ltd. Vs DCIT [2017] 84 taxmann.com 195 (SC), it was incumbent on the ITAT to restrict the addition made on account of Bogus Purchases', it having once come to a categorical finding that such total amount of addition made represented alleged purchases from bogus suppliers? 4. Briefly stated the material facts are as under: The Respondent assessee is engaged in the business of trading in industrial oil and transport services. A return of income was filed by the assessee declaring a total income at Rs.4,47,970/-. The Sales Tax Department of the Government of Maharashtra provided information to the Assessing Officer (A.O.) giving names, addresses and details of persons, who....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....esulted in an addition of Rs.10,59,974/-. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal fled by the Revenue and allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. It was held that the case of the Revenue was based on the investigation carried out by the Sales Tax Department only and that no cross-examination of the persons, whose names had figured in the list so prepared by the Sales Tax Department, was allowed. It was held that the A.O. had failed to complete the investigation in the case and that the affidavits and the confirmation letters fled by the assessee from three dealers from whom it had made purchases, were not inquired into at all and that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the factum of making purchases from the respective parties ....