TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 2162
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ell as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition for Rs. 4,92,46,152/- on account of alleged bogus purchases by treating as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. (3) The learned CIT(A) was not justified in summarily disregarding all the evidence tendered by the appellant while relying on the information that remains under the wraps. (4) All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. (5) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any of the grounds either before or in course of hearing of the appeal." 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee informs the Bench that assessee does not wish to press Ground No.1; therefore, Ground No.1 is dismissed as "not pressed". 3. The appellant has made an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule-29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963. It is submitted that the appeal relates to disallowance of import from an overseas supplier namely, M/s Bristal Medical Wholesale, which was held as non-existent and the closing balance of Rs. 4,92,46,150/- was added to the income of appellant. The appellant believed that the information supplied to the CIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hout calling for further evidence and explanation. Rule 29 of ITAT Rules, 1963 permits to admit additional evidence for any substantial cause. The intention behind the Rule is that substantial justice should be done and the interest of justice should be the overriding consideration. After considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we admit the additional evidence and same will be considered while deciding the appeal. 4. Facts of the case in brief are that assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 45,53,730/- for the year under consideration on 28.09.2012. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 17.03.2016 determining total income at Rs. 45,74,550/-. Later on, the case was re-opened on the basis of information received from USA Authority and notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2017. In response thereto, assessee filed copy of return of income on 31.08.2017 and requested for reasons of re-opening which was supplied to the assessee. During the reassessment proceedings, it was observed that the appellant had shown M/S Bristol Medical Wholesale, USA as a creditor with an outs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of proof and confirmed the addition made by AO u/s 68 of the Act. 7. Further aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, Ld.AR of the assessee filed paper book and submitted that the Department had added the impugned amount by holding that the overseas supplier M/s Bristol Medical Wholesale does not exist as per information received from the Competent Authority of USA. The entire closing balance of Rs. 4,92,46,152/- has been added in absence of proof. However, the CIT(A) has not expressed dissatisfaction to any of the evidences submitted by the appellant. The Ld. AR submitted that the website link works even today when one puts search as Bristoal Med Wholesale with ctcompanydir. He also submitted that supplier invoice, bill of entry and bank advice for foreign remittance are sufficient to prove supplier's existence. He requested the ITAT to accept the evidence as stated above in the interest of justice. He has filed separate paper book containing 201 pages and requested to admit them as additional evidence. It includes "(i) Apostille from the office of the secretary of the state of Connecticut, the USA of existence of B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....period of its existence. The CIT-DR also submitted that banking transactions alone do not establish genuineness of transaction unless supported by evidence of actual goods of services received. The assessee made payments to an entity which did not exists and at the same time it has received share capital from Soma Tech USA which suggests that funds have been routed and reintroduced in assessee's book under the guise of share capital. He concluded that assessee failed to discharge the burden to escape mischief of the provisions u/s 68 of the Act. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials on record. We have also considered the additional evidences and discussed the same with the Ld. AR and Ld.CIT-DR. There is no dispute that there was closing credit balance of the overseas supplier, M/s Bristol Medical Wholesale of Rs. 4,92,46,153/-. In order to examine identity of the above creditor and genuineness of transactions, AO had referred the matter to FT & TR, Exchange of Information Cell, New Delhi. Subsequently, information was received from the Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Washington DC that there was no evidence of the above creditor. The appel....