ACIT, Meerut V. M/s. Chitra Prakashan (India) Pvt. Ltd., Meerut

ITA 5097/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97782 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJIV SA PRA O P SAPRA
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 133(6)

Judgement Text

1 0IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. A.T.VARKEY, JM AND SH. PRASHANT MAHARI SHI, AM ITA NO. 5097/DEL/2012 ASSTT. YEAR : 2009-10 ACIT CIRCLE I MEERUT VS CHITRA PRAKASHAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 312, W.K.ROAD MEERUT (AP PELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AACCC3880B APPELLANT BY : SH. HEMANT GUPTA, SR. DR. RESPONDENT BY : SH. SANJIV SA PRA, O.P.SAPRA, ADV. DATE OF HEARING : 1 5 .10.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 .10.2015 ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI: AM 01. THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY REVENUE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF CIT (A) DATED 12.7.2012 FOR AY 2009-10. 02. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A PRIV ATE LIMITED COMPANY CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF PUBLISHING. FOR AY 2009-10, IT F ILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 20.09.2009 DECLARING INCOME OF RS 48,93,828/-. ASSE SSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS FRAMED ON 30.12.2011 AND AO MADE TWO ADDITIONS IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AS UNDER :- A) RS 44,04,230/- ON ACCOUNT OF NON-GENUINE SUNDRY CRE DITORS B) RS 1,5890,719/- ON ACCOUNT OF NON-GENUINE PURCHASES BEFORE CIT (A), ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE ABOVE ADDITI ON WHO DELETED THEM AND THEREFORE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 03. FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF A DDITION OF RS 44,04,230/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED SUNDRY CREDITORS. DURING ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS A O ISSUED NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT TO 35 SUNDRY CREDITORS AND IN ONLY 7 2 CASES INDEPENDENT CONFIRMATION WERE NOT RECEIVED B Y AO AS NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT RECEIVED BACK BECAUSE OF INC OMPLETE OR OLD ADDRESS OR BUSINESS OF THOSE PARTIES CLOSED. THEREFORE, AO MAD E ADDITION OF SUCH UNCONFIRMED SUPPLIERS AMOUNTING TO RS. 44,04,230/- AS NON-GENUINE. ASSESSEE CARRIED MATTER BEFORE CIT (A) AND SUBMITTED THAT OU T OF SEVEN PARTIES, BALANCES OF THREE PARTIES WERE OUTSTANDING FROM EAR LIER YEARS AND IN CASE OF OTHER FOUR PARTIES, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THEY ARE SMALL. FOR ALL SEVEN PARTIES ASSESSEE SUBMITTED COPIES OF ACCOUNTS OF THOSE PART IES, PHOTOCOPIES OF PURCHASE BILLS THE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THOSE PARTIES FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. CIT (A) ALSO ADMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEING CONFIRMATION OF THE PARTIES AND BA NK CERTIFICATES OF THE PAYMENTS MADE. THOSE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE SENT TO AO FOR REMAND REPORT IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE AO OBJECTED TO ADMI SSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND STATED THAT AS 133(6) NOTICES REMAINE D UNRESPONDED IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE ADDITIONAL EVI DENCES SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED AND ON MERITS, HE DID NOT OFFER ANY COM MENTS. HOWEVER, CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER PERUSING THE EVIDENCES S UBMITTED. THEREFORE, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THIS GROUND. 04. BEFORE US THE LD DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF AO AS W ELL AS DECISION OF HONORABLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT V LA MEDI CA 250 ITR 575. 05. LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A CHART SHOWING PAR TICULARS OF EACH OF THE SEVEN CREDITORS SHOWING DETAILS SUBMITTED BEFORE AO AND CIT (A). HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED COPIES OF ACC OUNTS OF CREDITORS FOR THE 3 CURRENT YEAR AS WELL AS SUBSEQUENT YEARS TO SHOW TH E PAYMENTS MADE TO THEM, COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWING PAYMENTS TO THE PARTIES AND COPIES OF BILLS OF PURCHASES. HE SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF SEVEN ACCOUNTS, THREE ACCOUNTS I.E. M/S ADINATH ENTERPRISE ( RS 16 ,52,186/-) , RS SRI TRADERS ( RS 12,97,200/-) AND M/S SHIVANGI ENTERPRISES (R S 1399831/-) ARE ALL OPENING BALANCES CARRIED FORWARD FROM EARLIER YEAR S. ACCORDING TO THE CHART, HE EXPLAINED THAT IN CASE OF THESE CREDITORS COPI ES OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTIES FROM AY 2008-09 TO 2010-11 FROM THE BOOKS O F THE ASSESSEE WERE SUBMITTED TO SHOW THAT HOW THEY ARE PAID OFF. THE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE BILLS OF PURCHASES WERE ALSO SUBMITTED TO SHOW THEIR ADDRESS ES AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THE MATERIAL PURCHASED FROM THEM IN EA RLIER YEARS. REGARDING PAYMENTS MADE TO THEM, THE DETAILS OF THE BANK STAT EMENT OF THE APPELLANT WERE SUBMITTED SHOWING HOW PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN REFLE CTED IN THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SOME CASES, ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE CONFIRMATION/ CERTIFICATES OF THE BANKERS FOR PAY MENTS MADE TO THOSE PARTIES. REGARDING OTHER FOUR PARTIES WHO ARE OF SMALL AMOUN TS, HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPIES OF ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTIES FOR THIS Y EAR AS WELL AS SUBSEQUENT YEARS, PHOTOCOPIES OF THE BILLS, COPY OF THE BANK A CCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THE AMOUNTS PAID TO THEM. HE FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT THE DETAILS OF ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES WERE GIVEN FROM THE BILLS AN D THESE DETAILS ARE GIVEN AS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, HIS SUBMIS SION WAS THAT ALL THOSE DETAILS WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE AO IN REMAND PROC EEDINGS AND THEREFORE CIT (A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION RIGHTLY. 4 06. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AO AND LD. CIT (A). THERE WERE 35 SUN DRY CREDITORS STANDING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS AT 31.3.20 09 AND TO ALL OF THEM AO SENT NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT. OUT OF THEM IN CASE OF SEVEN PARTIES, THE CONFIRMATION COULD NOT BE OBTAINED BECAUSE OF THE R EASON OF OLD / INCOMPLETE ADDRESS OR CLOSURE OF THE BUSINESS OF THOSE PARTIES . THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF THE CONFIRMATION FROM THESE PARTIES AO MADE ADDITIO N. THE ANALYSIS OF DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE AO AND CIT(A) IS AS UNDER :- SR NO NAME AMOUNT WHETHER OLD OR NEW DETAILS SUBMITTED / REMARKS 1 AADINATH INDUSTRIES 16, DWARKAPURI MUZZAFARNAGAR UP PAN BANPS0016A 16,52,186/- OLD COPIES OF ACCOUNT FORM AY 2008-09 TO 2010-11, COPIES OF PURCHASE BILLS, CONFIRMATION OF THE PARTY FOR AY 2010-11 WHERE IN OPENING BALANCE AS AT RS 16,52,186/- IS CONFIRMED, BANKERS CERTIFICATES OF ICICI BANK AND ING VASYA BANK FOR PAYMENTS MADE BY ASSESSEE TO THIS PARTY 2 SRI TRADERS 26/569 MALAVIYANAGAR LUCKNOW 12,97,200/- OLD COPIES OF ACCOUNT FORM AY 2008-09 TO 2010-11, COPIES OF PURCHASE BILLS, BANKERS CERTIFICATES OF ING VASYA BANK FOR PAYMENTS MADE BY ASSESSEE TO THIS PARTY, COPIES OF BANK STATEMENT OF APPELLANT WHEREFROM PAYMENT TO THE PARTY IS MADE 3 SHIVANGI ENTERPRISES 51/27-B NAYA GANJ KANPUR PAN AFTPG4207M 13,99,831/- OLD CONFIRMATION OF THE PARTY FOR AY 2009-10, COPIES OF PURCHASE BILLS, BANKERS CERTIFICATES OF ICICI BANK FOR PAYMENTS MADE BY ASSESSEE TO THIS PARTY, COPIES OF BANK STATEMENT OF APPELLANT WHEREFROM PAYMENT TO THE PARTY IS MADE 4 EXPRESS ROADWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED 7483 BANSAL APARTMENT 1043/- NEW COPIES OF ACCOUNT FORM AY 2008-09 TO 2010-11, COPIES OF PURCHASE BILLS 5 TELMILL MARG, RAMNAGAR PAHARGANJ NEW DELHI 5 DR AVINASH KUMAR 1421/C OPPOSITE GOLE MANDIM, SECTOR 3, SHAHSTRI NAGAR PAN ANLPA4036E 4600/- NEW COPIES OF ACCOUNT FORM AY 2008-09 TO 2010-11, COPIES OF PURCHASE BILLS 6 MUSHARRAF JAHAN 44975/- NA ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THERE IS NO SUCH ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE 7 NEEL KAMAL GOVIND PLAZA BEGUM BRIDE MEERUT 4395 NEW CONFIRMATION OF THE PARTY FOR AY 2009-10 AND 2010-11 COPIES OF PURCHASE BILLS, COPIES OF BANK STATEMENT OF APPELLANT WHEREFROM PAYMENT TO THE PARTY IS MADE FROM THE ABOVE CHART, IT IS APPARENT THAT ASSSESSEE HAS SUPPLIED THE ADDRESS AVAILABLE WITH IT. IT MAY BE POSSIBLE THAT THERE IS CHANGE IN ADDRESS DUE TO MANY REASONS. DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED OVERWHELMING DETAILS OF THE AMOUNT STANDING AS C REDITOR IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. MANY CREDITORS ARE CARRIED FORWARD BALA NCES FROM EARLIER YEARS. IT IS ALSO CONFIRMED ALONG WITH THE CONFIRMATION OF PA YMENTS MADE IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS TO THEM FROM THE BANKERS. COPIES OF THE BILLS OF PURCHASES MADE FROM THEM IN EARLIER YEARS IS ALSO SUBMITTED I N CASE OF OUTSTANDING AND CARRIED FORWARD CREDITORS AND BILLS OF CURRENT YEA R IN CASE OF NEW CREDITORS. COPIES OF BILLS SUBMITTED SHOWS TELEPHONE NUMBER S, SALES TAX NUMBERS AND CENTRAL SALES TAX NUMBERS OF SUPPLIERS AND CREDITOR S. REVENUE HAS UNDISPUTEDLY ACCEPTED PURCHASES IN THE EARLIER YEARS IN CASE OF OLD CREDITORS AND IN THE CURRENT YEAR WITH RESPECT TO THE NEW CREDITORS. IN CASE OF PARTY NO SIX NAMELY MUSHARRAF JAHANA (RS 44,975/-), SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SUCH PARTY DOES NOT EXIST IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ALS O FIND THIS STATEMENT CORRECT 6 BECAUSE WE COULD NOT FIND SUCH PARTY IN THE LIST OF 35 CREDITORS TO WHOM NOTICES WERE SENT. FURTHER BILLS FOR THE PURCHASE S WHERE FULL ADDRESS, NOMENCLATURE OF MATERIAL ALONG WITH THE QUANTITY AN D RATES, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL SALES TAX NUMBERS ARE AVAILABLE. THIS IN OU R VIEW IS CONTEMPORANEOUS CONFIRMATION PROVIDED BY SUPPLIER FOR PURCHASES BOO KED BY ASSESSEE. RELIANCE BY REVENUE ON THE DECISION OF HONORABLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT V LA MEDICA 250 ITR 575 IS ALSO MISPLACED AS IN THAT C ASE BECAUSE A) AO HAS NOT MADE ANY INQUIRY ABOUT THE RATES OF PURC HASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DESPITE BILLS OF PURCHASES AVAILABLE WITH HIM. IN FACT, IN THE PRESENT CASE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE PURCHASES MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THESE PARTIES IN CURRENT YEAR AND PREVIOUS Y EARS. B) THERE IS NO SUCH ALLEGATION IN THE PRESENT CASE THA T BANK ACCOUNT OF THE SUPPLIERS IS ALSO OPENED FICTITIOUSLY. C) ADDRESSES OF SUPPLIERS WERE FOUND INCOMPLETE IN T HAT CASE BUT NOT FICTITIOUS. THEREFORE LOOKING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND DE TAILS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A ) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 44,04,230/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS SUNDR Y CREDITORS. THEREFORE GROUND NO ONE OF THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 07. FACTS OF SECOND ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS. 1,58,90, 719/- AS PER GROUND NO 2 OF THE APPEAL ARE IN NARROW COMPASS. IN CASE OF TH REE PARTIES, AO HAS TREATED THEM AS NON-GENUINE AND PURCHASES MADE FROM THEM HA S BEEN ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS NON-GENUINE PURCHAS ES IN ABSENCE OF 7 CONFIRMED COPIES OF ACCOUNTS. DETAILS OF PURCHASES MADE FROM THESE PARTIES IS AS UNDER:- SR NO NAME OF THE PARTY AMOUNT OF PURCHASES 1 SILVERTON PULP AND PAPERS ( P ) LIMITED 1,44,95 ,306/- 2 M/S SATYA PRAKASH & CO 7,94,011/- 3 M/S SILVER PAPERS 6,01,402/- TOTAL 1,58,90,719/- 08. LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITION FULLY IN CASE OF ALL THE THREE PARTIES FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- SR NO NAME OF THE PARTY AMOUNT OF PURCHASES WHETHER CONFIRMATION SUBMITTED OBSERVATION OF AO IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS 1 SILVERTON PULP AND PAPERS ( P ) LIMITED 1,44,95,306/- CONFIRMATION SUBMITTED NO COMMENTS 2 M/S SATYA PRAKASH & CO 7,94,011/- CONFIRMATION SUBMITTED NO COMMENTS 3 M/S SILVER PAPERS 6,01,402/- CONFIRMATION SUBMITTED NO COMMENTS TOTAL 1,58,90,719/- FURTHER BEFORE CIT (A) ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE COPIE S OF BILLS OF PURCHASES, INCOME TAX DETAILS OF SUPPLIERS, COPY OF ASSESSEE S BANK ACCOUNT WHEREFROM THE PAYMENTS FOR PURCHASES WERE MADE TO THESE PART IES. THEREFORE AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT (A) REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF PURCHASES OF RS 1,58,90,719/- 8 09. BEFORE US THE LD. DR RELYING ON THE DECISION OF H ONORABLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF LA MEDICA 250 ITR 575 SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE OF BOGUS PURCHASES IN ABSENCE OF CONFIRMATION ADDITION IS RIGHTLY MADE BY AO AND CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE SAME. 10. LD. AR OF THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT WHEN BEFORE CIT (A) ALL THE CONFIRMATION OF THE PARTIES WERE PRODUCED AND IN RESPONSE TO THAT AO HAS NOT OFFERED ANY COMMENTS WHICH ITSELF SHOWS THAT REASONS OF DELETION OF ADDITION WAS ABSENCE OF CONFIRMATION AND NOW THE CONFIRMATION IS SUBMITTED THE ADDITION CANNOT SURVIVE. HE SUBMITTED THAT OVE R AND ABOVE THE CONFIRMATION OF THE PARTIES ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE COPIES OF THE BILLS, COPIES OF INCOME TAX RETURN OF THE PARTIES, COPIES OF ASSESSEE S BANK ACCOUNTS WHERE FROM THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE. HE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER PARA NO 6.4 OF THE ORDER OF CIT (A) THE FULL DETAILS WHICH ARE AVA ILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AS PURCHASER OF GOODS IS SUBMITTED. HE FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE AO THAT HE HAS MADE SOME INQUIRIES AND PARTIES DO NOT EXIST. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED ADDITION . 11. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,58,90,719/- WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THREE PARTIES AS ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THE CONFIRMED COPIES OF ACCOUNT. IN APPEAL BEFORE CIT (A) ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE CONFIRMATION OF ALL THE THREE PAR TIES AND THESE WERE ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND AO WAS DIRECTED TO SUBM IT THE REMAND REPORT. IN REMAND REPORT, AO OBJECTED ABOUT THE ADMISSION OF A DDITIONAL EVIDENCES BUT 9 DID NOT COMMENT ON THE CONFIRMATIONS FILED BY THE A SSESSEE. BELOW CHART DEPICTS THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BEFORE LOWER AUTHORI TIES :- SR NO NAME OF THE PARTY AMOUNT OF PURCHASES DETAILS SUBMITTED 1 SILVERTON PULP AND PAPERS ( P ) LIMITED 1,44,95,306 /- COPIES OF THE ACCOUNT OF THE PARTY FROM THE BOOKS O F THE ASSESSEE FOR THE CURRENT YEAR AS WELL AS SUBSEQUENT TWO YEARS TO SHOW THE DETAILS OF PURCHASES BOOKED AND PAYMENTS MADE, CONFIRMATION OF THE PARTY, COPIE S OF PURCHASE BILLS, COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN OF THE SUPPLIER FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR, COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE TO SHOW THE PAYMENTS TO THE SUPPLIERS 2 M/S SATYA PRAKASH & CO 7,94,011/- COPIES OF THE ACCOUNT OF THE PARTY FROM THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE CURRENT YEAR, CONFIRMATION OF TH E PARTY, COPIES OF PURCHASE BILLS, COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN OF THE SUPPLIER ALONG WITH COMPUTATION OF TO TAL INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR, COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE TO SHOW THE PAYMENTS TO THE SUPPLIERS 3 M/S SILVER PAPERS 6,01,402/- COPIES OF THE ACCOUNT OF THE PARTY FROM THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE CURRENT YEAR, CONFIRMATION OF TH E PARTY, COPIES OF PURCHASE BILLS, PAN OF THE SUP PLIER , COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE TO SHOW THE PAYMENTS TO THE SUPPLIERS TOTAL 1,58,90,719 /- FROM THE ABOVE TABLE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS SUBMITTED ALL CONFIRMATION OF THE SUPPLIERS. FURTHER, THE COPIES OF THE BILLS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ALSO SERVES THE PURPOSES AS CONTEMPORANE OUS CONFIRMATION OF THE SUPPLIER. IF AO FINDS SOMETHING FISHY AND WISHES T O INQUIRE MORE IT IS FOR HIM TO EXERCISE THE POWERS CONFERRED ON HIM BY THE STATUE. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS THAT AO HAS NOT MADE ANY INQUIRY FORM T HE SUPPLIERS OF THE GOODS THOUGH THE COPIES OF BILLS SHOWING NAME, ADDRESS , TELEPHONE, NUMBERS, SALES TAX NUMBERS, CENTRAL SALES TAX NUMBERS, QUANTITY A ND RATE OF MATERIAL PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE AO THAT PURCHASED MATERIAL HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE O R CONSUMED BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE RATES AT WHICH THE MATERIAL IS PURCHASED IS NOT AT PREVAILING MARKET RATES. 10 IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE AO THAT PAYMENTS MAD E BY ASSESSEE TO THE SUPPLIERS IS FICTITIOUS. FOR THE REASONS ALREADY GI VEN IN OUR FINDINGS IN GROUND NO ONE, WE HOLD THAT RELIANCE PLACED BY REVENUE OF THE DECISION OF HONOURABLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT V LA MEDICA 250 ITR 575 IS MISPLACED. THEREFORE, SUBMISSION OF CONFIRMATION OF SUPPLIER S BY ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE BILLS AND DETAILS OF PAYMENTS AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY INDEPENDENT INQUIRY BY AO WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ADDITION MADE BY AO IS GROSSLY ERRONEOUS. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNCONFIRMED PURCHASE OF RS 1 ,58,90,719/- ON ACCOUNT OF THREE PARTIES. THEREFORE GROUND NO TWO OF THE AP PEAL IS DISMISSED. 12. GROUND NO THREE OF THE APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ADMISS ION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY CIT (A). THE GROUND RAISED BY REVENUE HAS ALSO O BJECTED THAT BEFORE AO THERE IS A NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR DID NOT SUBMIT ANY SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS ON THI S GROUND. HOWEVER, IT WOULD BE SUFFICE TO SAY THAT CIT (A) HAS GIVEN A RE ASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO AO AGAINST THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SUBM ITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS ALSO OFFERED HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT REMAN D REPORT, WHICH IN FACT AO SUBMITTED. HOWEVER, IN REMAND REPORT AO KEPT ON OBJECTING TO THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BUT DID NOT COMME NT ON THE EVIDENCE ITSELF OR DID NOT CARRY ANY INQUIRY HIMSELF ON SUCH EVIDEN CES. IT IS ALSO SURPRISING THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT (A) CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED CORRECTNESS OF SUNDRY CR EDITORS AS WELL AS THE DETAILS OF PURCHASES. FURTHER FROM THE ORDER ITSELF IT IS EVIDENT THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT 11 BEEN GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR EXAMPLE ON 20/11/2011 ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRO DUCE THE CONFIRMATION OF ALL THE SEVEN CREDITORS WHO ARE AT DIFFERENT PLACES AND ON 30.12.2011 AO HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN CASE OF SUPPLIERS, ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE CONFIRMATION ON 20.12.2011 WITHIN SEVEN DAY S. NO JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS CITED IN THE GROUND COME TO RESCUE OF TH E REVENUE AS THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ARE ADMITTED BY CIT AFTER AFFORDING FULL OPPORTUNITY TO AO AND IT IS APPARENT THAT AO HAS NOT GRANTED SUFFICIENT OPPORTU NITY OF HEARING TO ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW THE GROUND NO. THREE DESERV ES TO BE DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/10/2015) SD/- SD/- (A.T.VARKEY) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER DATED: 30 /10/2015 *B. RUKHAIYAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 12 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 30 / 10 /2015 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 30 / 10 /2015 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 30/10/2015 7 . FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 30/10/2015 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.