The ITO, Ward-1(2)(4), Ahmedabad V. Shri Sandeep P. Shah, Ahmedabad

ITA 3260/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5474 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H V GANDHI
• Assessee Lawyers: S K DEV
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Business expenditure; Opportunity of cross examination; Additional evidence; Third party statement; Accommodation entries; Onus to prove; Set aside
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

, LH LHLH LH IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 3260/AHD/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), AHMEDABAD-15 (PAN NO: BETPS 9090 C) VS. SHRI SANDEEP P. SHAH, 8, GALAXY APPARTMENT, JAWAHAR CHOWK, SABARMATI, AHMEDABAD-380 005. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. K. DEV, SR. D.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI H. V. GANDHI, (ADV.) / DATE OF HEARING : 04.09.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.11.2018 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF TH E REVENUE AGAINST THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-10, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ACCEP TING THE BOGUS PURCHASE WHEN THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD BOGUS ENTRY IN THE BOOK WHICH COULD NOT BE VERIFIED DURING ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELET ING THE ADDITION MADE C ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS.66,76,411/-. 3. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN E NTERTAINING FRESH EVIDENCES WITHOUT ALLOWING THE AO TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE AS REQUIRED AS PER RULE 46A. 2 ITA NO.3260/AHD/2015 ITO VS. SHRI SANDEEP P SHAH A.Y.. 2011-12 ON THE FACT AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER T O THE EXTENT MENTIONED ABOVE SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE HIS TRUE INCOME/BO OK PROFIT. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) ON THE A BOVE GROUNDS BE SET- ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. THE APPELLANT CRAVES, TO LEAVE, TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUN D OR ADD ANY NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 3. THE INTERCONNECTED ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO FOR RS. 66,76,417/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES VIS--VIS ON THE BASIS OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ADMITTED IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A. 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIV IDUAL AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN FERROUS AND NON FERROUS M ETAL UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S. SHIFCO STEEL IN DUSTRIES. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR HAS MADE PURCHASES FROM CERTAIN PARTIES AS DETAIL ED BELOW: SR. NO. NAME OF THE PARTY AMOUNT 1. M/S. NANDKISHORE SALES AGENCY PVT. LTD. 361794 2. M/S. BAJRANG STEEL & METAL PVT. LTD. 1332394 3. M/S. REALTY SALES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 310715 4. M/S. REMI TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. 518015 5. M/S. SATYANARYAN STEEL & ENG. CO. PVT. LTD. 587770 6. M/S. D. N. ENTERPRISE 46912 7. M/S. KWALITY ENTERPRISE 131776 8. M/S. STAINLESS IMPEX PVT. LTD. 1292055 9. M/S. S. S. ENTERPRISE 1011375 10. M/S. KEYSTONE TUBES PVT. LTD. 1083431 TOTAL 6676237 4.1 THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE AFORESAID PURCHASES ISSUED NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE AC T, WHICH RETURNED BACK WITH THE POSTAL REMARK NOT KNOWN. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO SOUGHT 3 ITA NO.3260/AHD/2015 ITO VS. SHRI SANDEEP P SHAH A.Y.. 2011-12 CLARIFICATION FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IN COMPLIAN CE THERETO VIDE LETTER DATED 23.02.2015 FURNISHED THE COPY OF VAT RETURN, XEROX COPY OF CHEQUES AND ACCOUNT STATEMENT DULY SIGNED BY THE PARTIES AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. HOWEVER, THE AO DID NOT FIND THE CONTENTION OF ASSESS EE CORRECT AND OBSERVED AS UNDER: I. THE NOTICES ISSUED UPON THE PARTIES WERE RETURNED AS UNSERV ED. II. THE PARTIES AS DISCUSSED ABOVE HAVE DULY ADMITTED IN THE STATEMENTS RECORDED DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS BY THE DCIT S ALES TAX DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI THAT THESE ARE ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. III. THESE PARTIES ARE CHARGING 0.50 PAISA FROM THE COMPANIES TAKI NG BOGUS ENTRIES FROM THE AFORESAID COMPANIES. THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS VERY MUCH APPEARING IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY T HE DCIT, VAT DEPARTMENT MUMBAI. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE AO HELD THAT THE PURCHASES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE BOGUS IN NATURE. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO DISALLOWED THE SAME AND ADDED RS. 66,76,237/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO LD CIT(A). T HE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) FILED THE COPIES OF VAT RETURN, COPY OF CHEQUES, COPY OF BANK STATEMENT AND CONFIRMATION OF THE ACCOUNTS OF MOST OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE GOODS. THE NECESSARY SUB MISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS PLACED ON PAGE 7 TO 10 IN THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). 4 ITA NO.3260/AHD/2015 ITO VS. SHRI SANDEEP P SHAH A.Y.. 2011-12 5.1 THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO SUBMITTED TH AT HE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE BANK STATEMENT OF TWO PARTIES AND ACCORDIN GLY REQUESTED THE AO TO EXERCISE HIS POWER AND OBTAIN THE COPY OF BANK STA TEMENT IN RESPECT OF SUCH PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM FILED THE ADDRESSES OF THE BANK BRANCHES IN RESPECT OF SUCH PARTIES. 5.2 THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT(A) ALSO FILED THE FORM C O F CERTAIN PARTIES TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGMENTS AS DETAILED UNDER : 1. HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SATHYANARYAN P. RATHI REPORTED IN 351 ITR 150. 2. HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M.K. BR OS REPORTED IN 163 ITR 249. 5.3 THE LD CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION DEL ETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 4. THE FIRST AND SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ADDITIONS OF RS.66,76,237/- BY CONSIDERING PURCHASES MADE BY THE APPELLAN T AS BOGUS PURCHASES. THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN C ONSIDERED WITH REFERENCE TO THE FACTS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R. THE AO MADE THE ADDITIONS ON THE BASIS OF REPORT FROM THE SALES TAX DEPA RTMENT, MUMBAI, THAT THE PARTIES FROM WHOM PURCHASES HAVE BEEN SHOWN ARE NOT THE GENUINE SELLERS OF THE GOODS, AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. SALES TAX DEPARTM ENT, MUMBAI, CONDUCTED SEARCH UPON THESE PERSONS AND RECORDED THEIR STA TEMENTS. IN THE STATEMENTS, THESE PERSONS ADMITTED THAT THEY ISSUED MERE BILLS AND THERE WAS NO ACTUAL SALES. THE AO FURTHER STATED THAT THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT IN CASH THROUGH BROKERS. 4.1 THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS, HE SUBMITTED - I) MONTHWISE PURCHASE AND SALES II) PARTYWISE MONTHWISE PURCHASE 5 ITA NO.3260/AHD/2015 ITO VS. SHRI SANDEEP P SHAH A.Y.. 2011-12 III) COPY OF BALANCE SHEET, TRADING ACCOUNT, P&L ACCO UNT, AUDIT REPORT AND STOCK REGISTER IV) COPY OF BANK STATEMENTS WITH COPY OF CHEQUES (BOTH SI DES) THROUGH WHICH PAYMENTS FOR THESE PURCHASES WERE MADE. V). TRANSPORTATION SLIPS RELATED TO TRANSPORT OF THESE GOODS 4.2 THE APPELLANT CITED VARIOUS CASE LAWS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS, AS MENTIONED IN HIS SUBMISSIONS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER AND SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO A RE NOT FOUND JUSTIFIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- I) THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN FERROUS AND NON FERROUS METAL. DURING THE YEAR, TOTAL PURCHASES OF THE APPELLA NT IS RS.1,44,80,582/-, OUT OF WHICH, THE AO CONSIDERED PURCHASES OF RS.66,76,237/- AS NO N-GENUINE. THIS IS ABOUT 47% OF THE TOTAL PURCHASES. IF 47% PURCHASES ARE NON -GENUINE, HOW THE APPELLANT MADE SALES IS AN IMPORTANT FACT TO BE CONSIDERED. II) THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED STOCK REGISTER, WHICH SHOWS MONTHWIS E PURCHASE AND SALES IN TERMS OF QUANTITY. THE AO DID NOT FIND ANY DEFECT IN THE SALES SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT. 70% OF SALES HAVE BEEN MADE TO VERY REPUT ED CONCERNS LIKE GAMON INDIA LTD. III) THE APPELLANT MADE PAYMENTS THROUGH A/C PAYEE CHEQUES AND T HERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE APPELLANT RECEIVED BACK THE AMOUNT IN CASH. IV) THE STATEMENTS OF THESE PARTIES WERE GENERAL IN NATURE AND NAME OF THE APPELLANT WAS NOT MENTIONED IN PARTICULAR. V) THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED CONFIRMATION FROM THESE PARTI ES AND COPIES OF THEIR VAT REGISTRATION DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 4.3 KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS MENTIONED ABOVE AND THE CASE LA WS CITED BY THE APPELLANT, IT IS CONSIDERED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS DISCHAR GED HIS ONUS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THESE TRANSACTIONS. THEREFORE, THE ADDITIO NS OF RS. 66,76,237/- ARE NOT FOUND JUSTIFIED, HENCE DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BE FORE US. 6. THE LD. DR BEFORE US FILED A PAPER BOOK RUNNING FROM PAGES 1-64 AND VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO. 6 ITA NO.3260/AHD/2015 ITO VS. SHRI SANDEEP P SHAH A.Y.. 2011-12 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR BEFORE US FILED A PAPER BOOK RUNNING FROM PAGE 1-220 AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CI T(A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATE RIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE PURCHASES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT ADMITTED BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE NOTICES ISS UED U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT REMAINED UN-SERVED. BESIDES, THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH BY THE VAT DEPARTMENT OF MUMBAI IN RESPECT OF THE PARTIES AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WHEREIN IT WAS ADMITTED BY THE PARTIES THAT THEY WERE E NGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO THE PARTIES. IN THIS REGARD, W E NOTE THAT THERE WAS NO MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE REVENUE OTHER THAN THE STATEM ENT OF THE PARTIES AS DISCUSSED ABOVE EVIDENCING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE B OGUS PURCHASES FROM THE AFORESAID PARTIES. 8.1 THERE WAS ALSO NO WHISPER AND IOTA OF EVIDENCE THAT T HE PAYMENT MADE IN CONNECTION WITH THE BOGUS PURCHASES HAS COME BACK TO THE AS SESSEE. 8.2 THERE WAS ALSO NO ALLEGATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PURCHASES AND SALES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 8.3 WE ALSO NOTE THAT IN SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES VARI OUS COURTS HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION, THE DETAILS OF THE CASES ARE SPECIFIED BE LOW: I. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M. K. BROS REPORTED IN 163 ITR 249 HAS HELD AS UNDER: 8. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IT CLEARLY AP PEARS THAT WHETHER THE SAID TRANSACTIONS WERE BOGUS OR NOT WAS A QUE STION OF FACT. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT NOTHING IS SHOWN T O INDICATE THAT ANY PART OF THE FUND GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THESE PARTIE S CAME BACK TO THE ASSESSEE IN ANY FORM. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THE TRIB UNAL THAT THERE IS 7 ITA NO.3260/AHD/2015 ITO VS. SHRI SANDEEP P SHAH A.Y.. 2011-12 NO EVIDENCE ANYWHERE THAT THESE CONCERNS IMPLICATE VOUCHER S TO THE ASSESSEE. EVEN THE TWO STATEMENTS DO NOT IMPLICATE THE T RANSACTIONS WITH THE ASSESSEE IN ANY WAY. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS THE TRIBUNA L ULTIMATELY HAS OBSERVED THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN DOUBTFUL FEATURES, B UT THE EVIDENCE IS NOT ADEQUATE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE AS SESSEE FROM THESE PARTIES WERE BOGUS. IT MAY BE STATED THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS GIVEN CREDIT FACILITIES FOR A SHORT DURATION AND THE PAYMENTS WERE GIVEN BY CHEQUES. WHEN THAT IS SO, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ENT RIES FOR THE PURCHASES OF THE GOODS MADE, IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE BOGUS ENTRIES. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND THAT THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL IS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER WE ANSWER THE QUESTION IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, THAT IS, IN FAVOUR OF THE A SSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. II. THE HONBLE KOLKATA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIA GNOSTICS VS. CIT REPORTED IN 334 ITR 111 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 9. HOWEVER, AS REGARDS THE PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S. SELVAS PHOT OGRAPHICS ARE CONCERNED AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,12,302, WE FIND THAT THOS E HAVE BEEN MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND THOSE HAVE BEEN ENCASHED THROUGH THE BANKERS OF M/S. SELVAS PHOTOGRAPHICS. IT APPEARS THAT AC CORDING TO THE APPELLANT, AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT, THE APPELLANT HA D NO BUSINESS TRANSACTION WITH M/S. SELVAS PHOTOGRAPHICS AND CONSEQUEN TLY, THE SAID PARTY DID NOT CO-OPERATE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVE R, THE TRANSACTION HAVING TAKEN PLACE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQ UES, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF MR. AGARWAL, THE L EARNED ADVOCATE APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS A NON -EXISTENT ONE. IF AN ASSESSEE TOOK CARE TO PURCHASE MATERIALS FOR HIS B USINESS BY WAY OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES FROM A THIRD PARTY AND SUBSEQUENTL Y, THREE YEARS AFTER THE PURCHASE, THE SAID THIRD PARTY DOES NOT APPEAR B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER PURSUANT TO THE NOTICE OR EVEN HAS STOPPED THE BUSINESS, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THAT ACCOUNT CANNOT BE DIS CARDED AS NON- EXISTENT. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE REVENUE HAS NOT PUT FORWARD ANY OTHER GROUND, SUCH AS, IT WAS NOT A GENUINE TRANSACTION FOR OTHER REASONS BUT HAS SIMPLY REJECTED THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND AS IF THERE WAS NO SUCH TRANSACTION. 10. THE TRANSACTION HAVING TAKEN PLACE THROUGH PAYMENT BY ACC OUNT PAYEE CHEQUES, SUCH PLEA IS NOT TENABLE AND IN SUCH CIRC UMSTANCES, THE TRIBUNAL BELOW ERRED IN LAW IN REVERSING THE FINDING ARR IVED AT BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ACCEPTING THE SA ID TRANSACTION AS A GENUINE TRANSACTION. 8 ITA NO.3260/AHD/2015 ITO VS. SHRI SANDEEP P SHAH A.Y.. 2011-12 11. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BELO W ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE DELETION OF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3,12,302 PAID TO M/S. SELVAS PHOTOGRAPHICS BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND DIRECT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO DEDUCT THE SAID AMOUNT AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE OF THE APPELLA NT. III. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. NIKUNJ EXIMP ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 372 ITR 619 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE REVENU E. HOWEVER, FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30-04-2010, WE FIND THAT T HE TRIBUNAL HAS DELETED THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES NOT ONLY ON THE BASIS OF STOCK STATEMENT I.E. RECONCILIATION ST ATEMENT, BUT ALSO IN VIEW OF THE OTHER FACTS. THE TRIBUNAL RECORDS THAT THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN REJECTED. SIMILARLY , THE SALES HAVE NOT BEEN DOUBTED AND IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT SUBSTANTIAL A MOUNT OF SALES HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT I.E. DEF ENCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT LABORATORY, HYDERABAD. FURTHER, T HERE WERE CONFIRMATION LETTERS FILED BY THE SUPPLIERS, COPIES OF INVOICES FOR PURCHASES AS WELL AS COPIES OF BANK STATEMENT ALL OF WHICH WOULD I NDICATE THAT THE PURCHASES WERE INFACT MADE. IN OUR VIEW, MERELY BECAUSE THE SUPPLIERS HAVE NOT APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE CI T(A), ONE CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT THE PURCHASES WERE NOT MADE BY THE RESPONDENT -ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS CIT(A) HAVE DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION OF RS.1.33 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES MERELY ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION BECAUSE THE SELLERS AND THE CANVASSING AGENTS HAVE NOT BE EN PRODUCED BEFORE THEM. WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS WELL A REASONED ORDER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE FACTS BEFORE CONCLU DING THAT THE PURCHASES OF RS.1.33 CRORES WAS NOT BOGUS. NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE ORDER DATED 30-04-2010 OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ME RELY ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE THIRD PARTY STATEMENT I .E. SALES TAX DEPARTMENT OF MUMBAI IN THE CASE BEFORE US. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE L D. DR AT THE TIME OF HEARING HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD SUGGESTING THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ADMITTED ANY ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS IN CONTRAVENTION TO TH E PROVISION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULE. 9 ITA NO.3260/AHD/2015 ITO VS. SHRI SANDEEP P SHAH A.Y.. 2011-12 THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT. HENCE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 01 ST NOVEMBER, 2018 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( WASEEM AHMED ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 01/11/2018 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS ! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ! ' # / CONCERNED CIT 4. ' # () / THE CIT(A) 10, AHMEDABAD. 5. &'( ! , ! , *+, , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. (- ./ / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, & //TRUE COPY// '/# $% ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) &'(, #)* / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 15/10/2018 (PAGE-5) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER : 29/10/2018 3. OTHER MEMBER .. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S30/10/2018 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT .. 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER