DCIT 25(1), MUMBAI V. SANJAY HIRACHAND DHOKAD, MUMBAI

ITA 5243/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7874 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 01-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 29-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Unexplained expenditure; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 69C; 131

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MU MBAI , , , , ! BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, J M / I.T.A. NO.5243/MUM/2013 ( '# $# / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(1) PRATYAKSHA KAR BHAVAN, ROOM NO.202, 2 ND FLOOR, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI - 400051 / VS. SHRI SANJAY HIRACHAND DHOKAD C/O. M/S. HI ROCK CONSTRUCTION CO., 903- A, GURUKUL TOWER, J.S.ROAD, DAHIS AR (WEST) MUMBAI - 400068 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AAAPA5702F ( /APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / DATE OF HEARING: 20.03.2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31.03.2017 / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 10.05.2013 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-35, MUMBAI [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] R ELEVANT TO THE A.Y.2010-11. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- REVENUE BY: SHRI VISHWAS MUNDHE ASSESSEE BY: SHRI BHUPENDRA SHAH ITA NO.5243/M/2013 A.Y.2010-11 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A), ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,99,2 7,664/- WHICH WAS MADE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, BY TREATING THE PURCHASE ARE NON-GENUINE . 2 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN RELYING UPON JUDGMENTS OF THE CIT V S. NIKUNJ EXIMP ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE APPELLANTS CASE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS O F THE ABOVE CASE LAWS. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FA CT THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SEC.133(6) ISSUED TO THE PARTIES FROM WHOM AL LEGED BILLS WERE RECEIVED WERE RETURNED UNDELIVERED BY THE POSTAL AU THORITIES AND SPOT VERIFICATION BY THE INSPECTOR OF THIS CIRCLE, REVEALED THAT NO BUSINESS IS CARRIED OUT FROM THESE PREMISES. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FA CT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES FROM W HOM ALLEGES BILLS WERE RECEIVED, BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DESPIT E SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITIES BEING ACCORDED TO HIM, VIDE SHOW CAUS E NOTICE DATED 11.02.2013. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FA CT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO REBUT THE FINDINGS OF SALES TAX DEPARTMENT VIS-- VIS BOGUS PURCHASE DESPITE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY B EING ACCORDED TO HIM, VIDE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 11.02.2013. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE MISLEADIN G SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT MA KE AVAILABLE THE INFORMATION, PROVIDED BY SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, WHEN IN FACT THE STATEMENTS RECORDED BY SALES TAX DEPARTMENT WERE PR OVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE SHOW CAUSE LETTER DATED 11.02.2013. 7. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE ASS ESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE, WHEN IN FAC T THE ASSESSEE DID ITA NO.5243/M/2013 A.Y.2010-11 3 NOT MAKE ANY SUCH REQUEST FOR CROSS EXAMINATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE ASSESSEE REQUEST FOR ISSUING SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WHEN IN FACT NO SUCH REQUEST WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ASSESSING O FFICER. 9. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.37, 60,430/- ON 20.09.2010. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT THE ACT). THEREAFTER, THE CASE W AS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS. NOTICE U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUE D ON 25.08.2011. CONSEQUENT TO THE CHANGE OF INCUMBENT IN OFFICE, FR ESH NOTICE U/S.142(1) OF THE ACT ALONG WITH DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUE D ON 09.07.2012. THE ASSESSEE WAS AN INDIVIDUAL AND WAS A CIVIL CONTRACT OR. THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE MATERIAL FROM 21 PARTIES AMOUNTING TO RS.4,99,27,664/-. THESE PARTIES WERE SUSPICIOUS DEALERS AND WERE ISSU ING THE BILLS WITHOUT DELIVERY OF ANY GOODS OR MATERIAL FOR COMMISSION. THEREFORE, SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS GIVEN AND NOTICE U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT W ERE ISSUED. THE NOTICES WERE SERVED. HOWEVER, THE OFFICIAL OF THE INCOME T AX DEPARTMENT VISITED THE SPOT AND FOUND THAT NO BUSINESS WAS RUNNING THE RE. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES FOR VERIFICATION. IT WAS IN CUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES BUT THE A SSESSEE FAILED TO DO SO. THEREFORE, THE SAID PURCHASES TO THE TUNE OF RS.4,9 9,27,664/- WAS ADDED TO ITA NO.5243/M/2013 A.Y.2010-11 4 THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SATISFIED, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE SAID ADDITION. THEREFORE, THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRE SENT APPEAL BEFORE US. ISSUE NO. 1 TO 8:- 4. UNDER THESE ISSUES THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED TH E DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,99,27,664/- ON AC COUNT OF THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS. THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE MATERIAL FROM DIFFERENT PARTIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VISITED T HE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA WWW.MAHAVAT.GOV.IN., IN WHICH THE FOLLOWING PARTIES WERE FOUND IN ISSUING THE BILLS ONLY WITHOUT ANY DELIVERY OF GOOD S OR MATERIALS FOR A COMMISSION. S. NO. NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES AMOUNT (RS.) 1 M/S. ARYEN SALES CORPN. 132-A AKSAR BHAWAN, BHAGATWADI, BHULESHWAR, MUMBAI - 400002 14,14,438 2 M/S. BALAJI TRADERS D/102 DHARMA NAGAR, OPP. JAYRAJ NAGAR, OFF LINK ROA D, BORIVALI (W), MUMBAI - 400091 46,58,466 3 M/S. BHARAT ENTERPRISE A/104, NEHA KUNJ CHS LTD., PANDESHWAR MARG, VASAI ( W), THANE 7,15,787 4 M/S.FORAM TRADERS 1/9, PALM VIEW CHS LTD., RAJAWADI, VIDYAVIHAR, MUMB AI- 400077 9,45,667 5 M/S. HANS ENTERPRISES 22/24, R.J.BLDG., 2 ND FLOOR, R. NO.47, ANANTWADI, BHULESHWAR, MUMBAI 400004 10,65,194 6 M/S. HERMITAGE TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. B/102 SONI PARK BLDG. NO.1, TPS- III, CHIKUWADI, BORIVALI (W), MUMBAI - 400092 64,31,651 7 M/S. JAI MATADI TRADING CO. 30,64,552 ITA NO.5243/M/2013 A.Y.2010-11 5 13/31, RAM MARKET, OLD BARDAN LANE, GR. FLOOR, VADG ADI, MUMBAI - 400003 8 M/S. JAIN CORPPORATION 173/6, GHARKUL SOC., SEC. NO.1, CHARKOP, KAN DIVALI (W), MUMBAI 400067 32,03,409 9 M/S. KRSNA ENTERPRISE A-10 KARISHANA APT., LINK ROAD, OPP. YOGI NAGAR, NR . AURA HOTEL BORIVALI (W), MUMBAI - 400091 31,28,546 10 M/S. MAHAVIR ENTERPRISE D-102, DHARMA NAGAR, YOGI NAGAR, OFF. LINK ROAD, BO RIVALI (W) MUMBAI 400 091 26,34,187 11 M/S. NAVDEEP TRADING CORPORATION 120/124, C.P.TANK NAKA, 1 ST FLOOR, V.P.ROAD, MUMBAI 400004 5,97,467 12 M/S. NIDDISH IMPEX PVT. LTD. 52/54 V.V.CHANDAN ST., BABU BHAVAN, 1 ST FLOOR, MASJID BUDNDER, MUMBAI - 400003 25,01,163 13 M/S. OM CORPORATION NANAKBHI WADI, RAM PADARTH BHAVAN, M.L.P. ROAD, MUL UND(E), MUMBAI 400 087 13,20,001 14 M/S. RIDDHI SIDDHI ENTERPRISES 30 DWARDESH, 2 ND FLOOR, MODI PATEL ROAD, BHAYANDER (W) THANE- 401101 31,35,102 15 M/S. ROHIT ENTERPRISE OM SAI BABA NAGAR, ROOM NO.1, JANTA NAGAR ROAD, NEA R SARGAM APT., BHAYANDER (W), THANE 401101 25,08,517 16 M/S. SHREE SAI TRADING CO. 6/2 MADHAV NIWAS, RAM MANDIR ROAD, BHAYANDER (W), THANE - 400067 19,35,147 17 M/S. SIDDHI ENTERPRISE 14 KOLSA X LANE, 23 SHIRIN MANSION, PYDHONIE, MUM BAI- 400003 31,33,894 18 M/S. SKAND INDUSTRIES 14 KOLSA X LANE, 23 SHIRIN MANSION, PYDHONIE, MUM BAI- 400003 19,07,446 19 M/S. TULSIANI TRADING PVT. LTD. PLOT NO.182, ROOM NO.9, SEC-1, SANJIVINI CHS LTD., CHARKOP, KANDIVALI (W), MUMBAI - 400067 25,04,063 20 M/S. URVIN GENERAL TRADING P. LTD. 218/220 SAMUEL ST., KAPOORWALA BLDG. , MEZANNINE FLOOR, MUMBAI - 400003 30,60,692 21 M/S. V. K. ENTERPRISES 62,275 ITA NO.5243/M/2013 A.Y.2010-11 6 163/4540 PANT NAGAR, GHATKOPAR (E), MUMBAI - 400075 TOTAL 4,99,27,667 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED THE SHOW CAUSE NOTI CE TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S.133(6) OF T HE ACT. HOWEVER, THE NOTICE U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT WERE RECEIVED SERV ED BUT THE PARTIES WERE NOT FOUND WORKING AS PER THE REPORT OF THE OFF ICIAL WHO VISITED THERE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO BE THE GEN UINE TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES FOR VERI FICATION AND ALSO FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE S HOWEVER CLAIMED TO MAKE THE PAYMENT TO THE PARTIES THROUGH CHEQUES. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DECLINED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E AND ADDED THIS WHOLE PURCHASES TO THE TUNE OF RS.4,99,27,664/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL THE CIT(A) DELETED THE SAME. BEFORE GOING FURTHER IT IS NECESSARY TO ADVERT THE FINDING OF TH E CIT(A) ON RECORD:- 5.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER VIS--VIS THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE LEARNED AUTHOR ISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT. THE ONLY ISSUE UN DER FIRST SIX GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS THE DISALLOWANCE OF PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS.4,99,27,664/-. THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS ADDED THE SAME BY TREATING THE PURCHASE S AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S.69C. IT IS FURTHER SEE N THAT NOTICES U/S.133(6) WERE DULY ISSUED AND SERVED TO T HE SAID SUPPLIERS. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID N OT ISSUE ITA NO.5243/M/2013 A.Y.2010-11 7 ANY SUMMONS TO THEM. IT IS THEREFORE, FURTHER SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS DISCHARGED HIS BURDEN OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE AND GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES CLAIMED. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT ONCE THE APPELLANT HAS DISCHARGED HIS BURDEN, THE SUBSEQUENT BURDEN SHIFTS TO THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO DISPROVE THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT. TH EREFORE, THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF T HE APPELLANT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRONEOUSL Y TREATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. I HAV E ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYE E CHEQUES AS REFLECTED IN THE BANK STATEMENTS OF THE APPELLANT AND HAS BEEN CREDITED TO THE BANK ACCOUNT S OF THE SUPPLIERS. THEREFORE, THIS CONTENTION OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT HOLD GOOD THAT ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQU E IS NOT A GOOD PROOF, PARTICULARLY IN ABSENCE OF ANY FU RTHER FINDING THAT THE SAID ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES HAVE NO T REACHED THE SAID SUPPLIER. I HAVE ALSO OBSERVED TH AT THE ONLY BASIS OF THE DISALLOWANCE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. THERE IS A FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THAT SUSPICION HOWEVER STRONG, CANNO T FORM THE BASIS OF ASSESSMENT. MOREOVER, IT IS FURT HER SEEN THAT, THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE DISCLOSE D BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE THE SAM E CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. ITA NO.5243/M/2013 A.Y.2010-11 8 ACCORDINGLY, WITHOUT ANY CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE S AID SUPPLIERS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE PROCEEDED TO TREAT THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDIT URE. APART FROM THIS, EVEN THE COPES OF STATEMENTS ALLEG ED TO HAVE BEEN RECORDED BY THE MVAT DEPARTMENT WERE NOT FURNISHED TO THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THE REBUTTA L OF THE SAME BY THE APPELLANT WAS NOT POSSIBLE. ANY ASSESS MENT MADE IN VIOLATION OF THIS ASPECT IS AGAINST THE LAW OF NATURAL JUSTICE. BESIDES, WITHOUT PURCHASES, THE A PPELLANT COULD NOT HAVE EXECUTED HUGE CONTRACT WORK OF 28.33 CRORES DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY SHOWN GROSS PROFIT AND NET PROFIT WHICH ARE DULY ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF REJECTION OF ANY BOOK RESULT, SUCH HUGE ADDITION OF RS.4,99,27,664/- IS NOT TENABLE IN LAW. IN THIS REGARD, I HAVE ALSO NOTICED THE ORDERS OF THE JURIS DICTIONAL TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BALAJI TEXTILE INDUSTRIES P VT. LTD. (49 ITD 117 MUM). MOREOVER, THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS RIGHTLY ADVERTED MY ATTENTION TO THE ORDERS OF THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF FREE INDIA ASSURANCE SERVICES LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (132 ITD 60) (MUMBAI)(TRIB) IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL TO REFUTE THE CLAIM OF THE ITA NO.5243/M/2013 A.Y.2010-11 9 ASSESSEE THAT THE CASH RECEIVED BY IT AGAINST THE C HEQUE PAYMENTS OF RS.30,80,730 FROM TWO PARTIES WAS UTILI ZED TO PURCHASE CLOTH FROM THE GREY MARKET WHICH WAS FO UND RECORDED IN THE INVENTORY OF CLOSING STOCK, IT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID MAKE CASH PURCHASES OF RS.30,80,730 AND THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE TREA TED AS BOGUS PURCHASES. MERE PAYMENT OF VAT BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE DEFAULT OF THE SUPPLIERS IS NOT S UFFICIENT TO TREAT THE PURCHASES AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. THE INCOME TAX IS A SELF-CONTAINED CODE. THEREFORE, I AM ALSO STRENGTHENED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S.NIKUNJ EXIMP PVT. LTD . (ITA APPEAL NO.5604 OF 2010) IN WHICH IT IS CATEGOR ICALLY HELD THAT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(A) HAVE DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES MERELY ON THE BAS IS OF SUSPICION BECAUSE THE PARTIES HAVE NOT BEEN PRODUCE D BEFORE THEM. WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS A WELL REASONED ORDER, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE FA CTS BEFORE CONCLUDING THAT THE PURCHASES WERE NOT BOGUS . NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL I S A WELL AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES CLAIMED. THERE IS ALSO A FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THA T CONTRACTILE CLIENTS ARE SUBJECTED TO SEVERAL INSPEC TIONS IN ITA NO.5243/M/2013 A.Y.2010-11 10 THEIR OFFICE BY DIFFERENT ENGINEERS AND AUTHORITIES . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NEVER DISPUTED THE COMPLETION OF CONTRACT AS PER THE STIPULATION OF THE CLIENTS OF T HE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, ON ONE HAND, THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CONTRACTS EXECU TED BY THE APPELLANT. ON THE OTHER HAND, HE HAS DISALLOWE D A HUGE SUM OF RS.4,99,27,664/- ONLY ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION ON THE MVAT WEBSITE AND MERELY ON SUSPICION. ON THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND THE CA SE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT, I AM OF THE CONSIDERE D VIEW THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT TENABLE IN LAW BECAUSE INCOME TAX IS A TAX ON R EAL INCOME. MOREOVER, I AM ALSO OF THE OPINION THAT TH E DISALLOWANCE OF THE WHOLE AMOUNT OF RS.4,99,27,664/ - U/S.69C WOULD RESULT INTO ABNORMALLY HIGH GP AND NP OF THE APPELLANT WHICH IS UNREALISTIC IN ANY LINE OF C ONTRACT AS BEING EXECUTED BY THE APPELLANT. I AM THEREFORE , INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE APPELLANT AND THE DISALL OWANCE OF RS.4,99,27,664/-. ACCORDINGLY, FIRST SIX GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOW ED. 6. ON APPRAISAL OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED ORDER, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARRIVED AT THIS CONCLUSI ON THAT THE PURCHASES TO THE TUNE OF RS.4,99,27,664/- WERE FROM THE 21 PA RTIES WHOSE NAMES ITA NO.5243/M/2013 A.Y.2010-11 11 HAVE BEEN CITED IN THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE SALE S TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA WWW.MAHAVAT.GOV.IN. AS BO GUS AS THESE PARTIES WERE ISSUING BILLS WITHOUT ANY DELIVERY OF GOODS OR MATERIAL FOR COMMISSION. ASSESSEE DISCLOSED THE ADDRESSES OF AL L THESE PARTIES AND ALSO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT THROUGH BANK IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE SAID PARTIES. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SUED THE NOTICES TO THE PARTIES WHICH WERE DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSE E BUT THE MATTER WAS NOT FURTHER ENQUIRED INTO. THE ONLY REASON WHI CH HAS BEEN MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE OFFI CIAL OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT HAS VISITED IN THE PREMISES OF ALL T HE 21 PARTIES, WHERE NO BUSINESS WAS FOUND BUT INFACT THERE IS NO FURTHE R ENQUIRY WAS DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DI D NOT ENQUIRE ABOUT THE PAYMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THROUGH CHEQUE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE SAID 21 PARTIES. NO DOUBT AFTER GIVING THE ADD RESS AND AFTER GIVING THE DETAILS OF THE PAYMENT THROUGH CHEQUE IN THE AC COUNT OF THE SAID PARTIES IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE TRANSACTION WHICH HE HAS NOT DONE. IN BRIEF THE EV IDENCES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE NOWHERE DISCUSSED AND DISCREDITED. MERELY THE NAME OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM THE TRANSACTION WAS DONE BY THE ASS ESSEE HAVE BEEN REFLECTED IN THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA WWW.MAHAVAT.GOV.IN. IS NO T ITSELF TO PROVE THE SUFFICIENT CASE IN CONNECTION WITH THE BO GUS PURCHASE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN THE GROSS PROFIT AND NET PROFIT WHICH WERE DULY ACCEPTED BY T HE ASSESSING ITA NO.5243/M/2013 A.Y.2010-11 12 OFFICER, THEREFORE IN ABSENCE OF THE REJECTION OF A NY BOOK RESULTED INTO SUCH HUGE ADDITION OF RS.4,99,27,664/- WAS NOT TENA BLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. THE CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE MATTER OF CONTR OVERSY HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE LAW SETTLED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S.NIKUNJ EXIMP PVT. LTD. (IT A APPEAL NO.5604 OF 2010). THE CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE MATTE R OF CONTROVERSY AFTER CONSIDERING THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FROM EVE RY ANGLE. NOTHING CAME INTO THE NOTICE THAT THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) IS REQUIRED TO BE INTERFERE WITH. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION MADE ABO VE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER JUDICIOUS LY AND CORRECTLY WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE TO BE INTERFERE WITH AT THIS APPELLATE STAGE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS HEREBY ORDERED TO BE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST MARCH, 2017 . SD/- SD/- ( RAJENDRA) (AMARJIT SINGH) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 31 ST #$ , 2017 MP ITA NO.5243/M/2013 A.Y.2010-11 13 & '$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ) ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. ) / CIT 5. , , , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. + -$ / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, ! ! //TRUE COPY// / /(DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI