ITO 13(3)(3), MUMBAI V. VAMAN INTERNATIONAL P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 794/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2001 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANATHIR SINGH
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Unexplained expenditure; Principle of natural justice; Opportunity of cross examination; Accommodation entries
• Section: 69C; 143(3); 115JB; 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'F' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 794/MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) INCOME TAX OFFICER - 13 - 3(3) VS. M/S. VAMAN INTERNATIONAL P. LTD. ROOM NO. 227, 2 ND FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400020 3 RD FLOOR, EURO HOUSE, ABOVE TANGENT FURNITURE, BEHIND INORBIT MALL, OFF LINK ROAD, CHINCHOLI BUNDER, MALAD (W), MUMBAI - 064 PAN AABCV5464F APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI RANATHIR SINGH RESPONDENT BY: SHRI VIJAY MEHTA DATE OF HEARING: 09.11.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16.11.2016 O R D E R PER JASON P. BOAZ, A.M. THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE CIT(A)-20, MUMBAI DATED 12.11.2014 FOR A.Y. 2010-11. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, BRIEFLY, ARE AS UNDER: - 2.1 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, ENGAGED IN TRADING OF FUR NITURE AND OTHER ALLIED ITEMS, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2010-11 ON 12.10.2010 DECLARING INCOME OF ` 13,80,371/- UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS AND BOOK PROFITS OF ` 14,55,806/- UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDE R SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT AND THE CASE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY TAKEN UP FOR SCRU TINY. ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVERNME NT OF MAHARASHTRA, RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) IN THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS FOUND BY THE AO THAT CERTAIN DE ALERS ARE PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES/BILLS WITHOUT DOING ANY ACTUA L BUSINESS. ON GOING THROUGH THE LIST OF SUCH BOGUS DEALERS LISTED BY TH E SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, ITA NO. 794/MUM/2015 M/S. VAMAN INTERNATIONAL P. LTD. 2 THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PURCHASES FROM THE FOLLOWING DEALERS, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER: - S.NO. NAME OF ALLEGED SUPPLIER AMOUNT OF ALLEGED PURCHASE ( ` `` ` ) 1 IMPEX TRADING CO. 2,90,80,292/- 2 VICTOR INTERTRADE PVT. LTD. 1,84,62,093/- TOTAL 4,75,42,385/- 2.2 TO ASCERTAIN THE GENUINENESS OF SUCH PURCHASES (SUPRA) THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE A FORESAID PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO ` 4,75,42,385/- SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. IN REPLY THERETO, THE ASSESSEE IN SUBM ISSION CLAIMED THAT PURCHASES FROM THE ABOVE TWO PARTIES (SUPRA) ARE GE NUINE AND REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND FURNISHED COPIE S OF PURCHASE AND SALES INVOICES FOR THESE PURCHASES, EXTRACTS OF STO CK LEDGER SHOWING THE ENTRY AND EXIT OF MATERIALS, BANK STATEMENT TO SHOW THAT THE ABOVE TWO PARTIES HAVE BEEN PAID FOR PURCHASES MADE THROUGH B ANKING CHANNELS BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. THE AO THEN, IN ORDER TO ASC ERTAIN THE GENUINENESS OF THESE PARTIES ISSUED NOTICES TO THES E PARTIES TO WHICH THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. THE AO MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSES SEE COPIES OF SWORN STATEMENT OF SHRI PRADEEP VYAS, DIRECTOR, M/S. VICT OR INTERTRADE PVT. LTD. AND SHRI KETAN SHAH, PARTNER, M/S. IMPEX TRADING CO . AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ABOVE PURCHASES AMOU NTING TO ` 4,75,42,385/- SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE IN REPLIES DATED 06.03.2013 AND 10.03.2013 FURNISHED COPIES OF PURCHASE AND SALE INVOICES AND CHALLAN-CUM-TAX INVO ICE IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES MADE FROM THESE TWO CONCERNS; I.E. M/S. V ICTOR INTERTRADE PVT. LTD. AND M/S. IMPEX TRADING CO., EXTRACTS OF STOCK LEDGER SHOWING ENTRY/EXIT OF MATERIALS, ETC. TO SHOW THAT THE PAYM ENT FOR THE SAID PURCHASES WERE MADE THROUGH REGULAR BANKING CHANNEL S, ETC. THE ASSESSEE ALSO STATED IN ITS SUBMISSIONS THAT IT CHALLENGES T HE STATEMENTS/ DECLARATION ON OATH OF SHRI PRADEEP VYAS AND KETAN SHAH AND STATED ITS INTENTION FOR CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE AFORESAID TW O PARTIES SINCE THEIR STATEMENTS WERE FALSE AND MISLEADING. THE AO DID NO T ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE AND BRUSHED A SIDE THE EVIDENCE ITA NO. 794/MUM/2015 M/S. VAMAN INTERNATIONAL P. LTD. 3 PLACED BEFORE HIM AS HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE AS SESSEES DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY LORRY RECEIPTS OR D ELIVERY CHALLANS; THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE THE THREE PART IES FROM WHOM ALLEGED PURCHASES WERE MADE BEFORE HIM FOR VERIFICATION AND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE SWORN STATEMENT ON OATH OF SHRI PRADEEP VYAS OF M/S . VICTOR INTERTRADE PVT. LTD. AND SHRI KETAN SHAH OF M/S. IMPEX TRADING CO. GIVEN BEFORE THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, T HE AO TREATED THE AFORESAID PURCHASES FROM THESE TWO PARTIES (SUPRA) AMOUNTING TO ` 4,75,42,385/- AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE UNDER SECT ION 69C OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY CONCLUDED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECT ION 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 22.03.2013 WHEREIN THE INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED AT ` 4,89,50,972/-, IN VIEW OF THE ADDITION OF ` 4,75,42,385/- UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF BOGUS PU RCHASES. 3.1 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2 010-11 DATED 22.03.2013, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A)-20, MUMBAI. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE REI TERATING ITS STAND TAKEN BEFORE THE AO AND INORDER TO ESTABLISH THE VERACITY OF THE PURCHASES, ONCE AGAIN PLACED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) DETAILED SUB MISSIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND REPRESENTATION AND COPIES OF EVIDENCE SUCH AS C OPIES OF PURCHASE/SALE INVOICES, CHALLAN-CUM-TAX INVOICE, EXTRACTS OF STOC K LEDGER SHOWING MOVEMENTS OF MATERIALS RECEIVED AND SENT AND DETAIL ED BANK STATEMENTS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PAYMENTS FOR SAID PURCHASES WERE MADE BY NORMAL BANKING CHANNELS., ETC. WHICH WERE FORWARDED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO THE AO FOR HIS COMMENTS. IN HIS REPLY DATED 23.07.2014, THE AO REITERATED THE STAND TAKEN IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. A COPY OF TH E AOS REPORT WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR REJOINDER THEREON FOR WHI CH DETAILED REPLY WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 11.08.2014 ALONGWITH A PAPER BOOK (190 PAGES) CONTAINING COPIES OF ASSESSEES FINANCI AL STATEMENTS, COPIES OF SWORN STATEMENTS OF SHRI PRADEEP VYAS AND SHRI KETA N SHAH GIVEN TO SALES TAX DEPARTMENT AND RELIED ON BY THE AO. IN SUBMISSI ONS MADE, THE LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE, APART FROM REITERATIN G THE DETAILS AND EVIDENCES PUT FORTH TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PURCHASES WERE NOT BOGUS, CONTENDED THAT THE AO HAVING NOT DOUBTED OR QUESTIO NED THE SALES AFFECTED ITA NO. 794/MUM/2015 M/S. VAMAN INTERNATIONAL P. LTD. 4 IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PURCHASES, THEREFORE THE PUR CHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE BOGUS, AS WITHOUT THE SAID PURCHASES THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE EFFECTED SALES. MERELY BECA USE THESE TWO PARTIES DID NOT RESPOND AND APPEAR BEFORE THE AO IN RESPONS E TO THE NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT, NO ADVERSE INFERENCE COULD BE DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 3.2 THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMI SSIONS/EVIDENCE PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE, THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND T HE AOS VIEWS IN THE MATTER, OBSERVED THAT THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT SUFFE RED FROM LEGAL INFIRMITIES, DEFICIENCIES AND WAS AGAINST THE DUE P ROCEDURE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. HE FOUND THAT THE AO WHILE HOLDING THE SAI D PURCHASES FROM THE TWO PARTIES (SUPRA) AS BOGUS BASICALLY RELIED ON TH E STATEMENTS OF SHRI PRADEEP VYAS OF M/S. VICTOR INTERTRADE PVT. LTD. AN D SHRI KETAN SHAH OF M/S. IMPEX TRADING COMPANY GIVEN BEFORE THE SALES T AX DEPARTMENT WITHOUT CONTROVERTING THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT AFFORDING IT THE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS-EXAMINATION O F THE TWO WITNESS WHOSE STATEMENTS WERE RELIED ON. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HELD THAT THE AOS VIEW THAT THE EXPENDITURE ON PURCHASES FROM THE ABOVE TWO PAR TIES ARE UNEXPLAINED UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT, IS NOT TENABLE BECAUS E THE SAID PURCHASES HAD BEEN EXPLAINED WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCES TO ESTA BLISH THAT THE SAID PURCHASES FROM THESE TWO PARTIES WERE GENUINE AND W HICH HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE AO. NO MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE FOR PURCHASES TO T HE ABOVE TWO PARTIES WERE RECEIVED BACK IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDI NG TO THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED DOCUMENTARY EVID ENCE BEFORE THE AO AND ALSO BEFORE HIM TO ESTABLISH THAT THE SAID PURC HASES WERE GENUINE AND WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO COULD NOT HAVE MADE THE ADDITIONS WITHOUT RECORDING FINDINGS CONTROVERTING THE EVIDENCES PROD UCED/PLACED BEFORE HIM. THE LEARNED CIT(A), INTER ALIA, PLACING RELIAN CE ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NIKUNJ EXI MP ENTERPRISES P. LTD. (372 ITR 619) (BOM) BY WHICH HE HELD THE ASSE SSEES CASE WAS SQUARELY COVERED, DELETED THE ADDITION OF ` 4,75,42,385/- UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 794/MUM/2015 M/S. VAMAN INTERNATIONAL P. LTD. 5 4.1 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-20, MUMBAI DATED 12.11.2014 FOR A.Y. 2010-11, REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - I. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION U /S.69C OF THE ACT TO THE TUNE OF 4,75,42,385/- ON ACCOUNT OF NON-GENU INE PURCHASES MADE FROM TWO VENDORS VIZ M/S. IMPEX TRADING CO. AN D M/S. VICTOR INETERTRADE PVT. LTD.? II. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, LD.CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE V ENDORS DID NOT FILE ANY REPLY OR SUBMISSION IN THE RESPONSE TO NOT ICE U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT NOR DID ASSESSEE PRODUCE THESE VENDORS BEFO RE THE A.O DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING TO ESTABLISH THE G ENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS? III. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD (CIT)(A) WAS RIGHT IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT NO DELIVERY CHALLANS ARE AVAILABLE IN RESPECT OF DELIVERY OF GO ODS BY THE ALLEGED PARTIES NOR PHYSICAL STOCK REGISTER, INWARD REGISTER, LORRY /TRANSPORTATION BILLS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED TO PROVE T HAT GOODS HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN DELIVERED /PURCHASE? VII. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) O N THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. BE RESTOR ED. VII. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUNDS OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY.' THOUGH NUMBERED (I) TO (VIII), WE RECORD THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE ONLY FIVE AS EXTRACTED ABOVE. 4.2 THE LEARNED D.R. WAS HEARD IN SUPPORT OF THE GR OUNDS RAISED (SUPRA). IT WAS CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE TWO PARTIES FROM WH OM PURCHASES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO AND LORRY RECEIPTS/TRANSPORTATION BILLS IN RESPECT OF T HE SAID PURCHASES WERE NOT PRODUCED, THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAID PURCHASES FRO M THE TWO PARTIES COULD NOT BE VERIFIED. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE PURCHASES AS BOGUS AND IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. 4.3 PER CONTRA, THE LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SU PPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES OF ` 4,75,42,385/- UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE S AID PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS HAD PRODUCED MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF COPIE S OF PURCHASE BILLS ISSUED ITA NO. 794/MUM/2015 M/S. VAMAN INTERNATIONAL P. LTD. 6 BY THESE PARTIES, PURCHASE/SALE INVOICES, CHALLAN-C UM-TAX INVOICES, EXTRACTS OF STOCK LEDGERS TO SHOW THE MOVEMENT OF MATERIALS RECEIVED/SENT AND BANK STATEMENTS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PAYMENT FOR SAID P URCHASES WERE MADE THROUGH NORMAL BANKING CHANNELS. IT IS CONTENDED TH AT, ON THE CONTRARY, THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD EVEN A SHRED OF EVIDEN CE TO PROVE THE SAID PURCHASES WERE BOGUS AND IN COMING TO AN ADVERSE FI NDING IN THE MATTER. THE AO MERELY RELIED ON THE INFORMATION OF PURCHASE PAR TIES LISTED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT AND RELIED ON STATEMENTS OF PARTIES IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AFFORDED ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR CROSS EXAMINATION OF THESE WITNESS. THE LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ON SIMILAR FACTS AND IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH C OURT AND VARIOUS COORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL HAD DELETED SUCH ADDITIONS MADE UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT IN, INTER ALIA, THE FOLLOWIN G CASES: - (I) CIT VS. NIKUNJ EXIMP ENTERPRISES P. LTD. (372 I TR 619) (BOM) (II) HIRALAL CHUNILAL JAIN VS. ITO (ITA NO. 4547/MU M/2014 DATED 01.01.2010) (III) IMPERIAL IMP & EXP VS. ITO (ITA NO. 5427/MUM/ 2015 DATED 18.03.2016) (IV) CIT VS. ASHISH INTERNATIONAL (ITA NO. 4299 OF 2009 (BOM) (V) RAJEEV KALATHIL (ITA NO. 5312/MUM/2013 DATED 05 .02.2016) 4.4.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUS ED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, INCLUDING THE JU DICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED. ON AN APPRECIATION OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD , IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSMENT THAT IT IS ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM SALES TAX DEPARTMENT THAT THE AO ISSUED THE SHOW CA USE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SAID PURCHASES AND ISSUED N OTICES UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE SAID TWO PARTIES FROM WHOM THE SAID PURCHASES WERE MADE, TO WHICH THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. THE AO P RIMARILY RELYING ON THE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTM ENT AND SWORN STATEMENTS GIVEN BEFORE THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT BY SRI PRADEEP VYAS OF M/S. VICTOR INTERTRADE P. LTD. AND SHRI KETAN SHAH OF M/S IMPEX TRADING COMPANY HELD THE SAID PURCHASES TO BE BOGUS. WHILE IT MAY BE TRUE THAT THE SAID TWO PURCHASE PARTIES DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE AO, FOR WHATEVER REASONS, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAD FILED COPIES OF ITA NO. 794/MUM/2015 M/S. VAMAN INTERNATIONAL P. LTD. 7 PURCHASE BILLS, COPIES OF PURCHASE/SALE INVOICES, C HALLAN-CUM TAX INVOICES IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES, EXTRACTS OF STOCK LEDGERS SHOWING ENTRY/EXIT OF MATERIALS; COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS TO EVIDENCE TH AT PAYMENT FROM THESE PURCHASES WERE MADE THROUGH NORMAL BANKING CHANNELS , ETC. TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAID PURCHASES. IT IS A FACT EVIDENT ON RECORD THAT THE AO HAS NOT DOUBTED THE SALES EFFECTED BY THE AS SESSEE AND THEREFORE IT IS IN ORDER TO CONCLUDE THAT WITHOUT CORRESPONDING PURCHASES BEING EFFECTED, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE MADE SALES. 4.4.2 IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE AO HAS NOT BROUGH T ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THAT THE SA ID PURCHASES ARE BOGUS. MERE RELIANCE BY THE AO ON INFORMATION OBTAINED FRO M THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE SWORN STATEMENT OF TWO PARTIES BE FORE THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, WITHOUT AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE ANY OPPO RTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THOSE WITNESSES IN THIS REGARD OR THE FACT THAT THESE PARTIES DID NOT RESPOND TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE A CT, WOULD NOT IN ITSELF SUFFICE TO TREAT THE PURCHASES AS BOGUS AND MAKE TH E ADDITION. IF THE AO DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THIS SAID PURCHASES, IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON HIM TO CAUSE FURTHER INQUIRIES IN THE MATTER TO ASC ERTAIN THE GENUINENESS OR OTHERWISE OF THE TRANSACTIONS. WITHOUT CAUSING A NY FURTHER ENQUIRES IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PURCHASES, THE AO CANNOT MAKE T HE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT BY MERELY RELYING ON INFORMA TION OBTAINED FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, THE STATEMENT/AFFIDAVIT OF TH IRD PARTIES, SHRI PRADEEP VYAS AND KETAN SHAH; WITHOUT THE ASSESSEE B EING AFFORDED ANY OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION OF THAT PERSONS AN D FOR NON-RESPONSE TO NOTICES UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. 4.4.3 IN THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE, WHERE THE AO FAILED TO CAUSE ANY ENQUIRY TO BE MADE TO ESTABLISH HIS SUSPICIONS THAT THE SAID PURCHASES ARE BOGUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD DOCUMENTA RY EVIDENCES TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTI ONS, THE ACTION OF THE AO IN IGNORING THESE EVIDENCES CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. FURTHER, THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASHISH INTERNATION AL (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE STATEMENTS RELIED UPON BY REVENUE IS NOT ESTABLISHED WHEN THE ASSESSEE DISPUTES THE CORRECTN ESS OF THOSE ITA NO. 794/MUM/2015 M/S. VAMAN INTERNATIONAL P. LTD. 8 STATEMENTS AND HAS NOT BEEN AFFORDED ADEQUATE OPPOR TUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THESE PARTIES EVEN THOUGH HE HAS ASKED FOR THE SAME. MOREOVER, AS CORRECTLY OBSERVED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHEN T HE PAYMENT FOR THE SAID PURCHASES TO THE CONCERNED TWO PARTIES IS THROUGH P ROPER BANKING CHANNELS AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO TO ESTABLISH THAT THE SAID PAYMENTS WERE ROUTED BACK T O THE ASSESSEE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE AC T IS UNSUSTAINABLE. WE ARE FORTIFIED IN THIS VIEW OF OURS BY THE DECISI ONS OF, INTER ALIA, THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASES OF NIKUNJ EX IMP ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), ASHISH INTERNATIONAL (SUPRA), THE DEC ISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HIRALAL CHU NILAL JAIN (SUPRA) AND IMPERIAL IMP & EXP (SUPRA). IN THIS FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE FIND NO REQUIREMENT FOR INTERFERENCE IN T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND CONSEQUENTLY UPHOLD THE SAME. THEREFORE, REVENUES FIVE GROUNDS (I) TO (VII) ARE DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH NOVEMBER, 2016. SD/ - SD/ - (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (JASON P. BOAZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 16 TH NOVEMBER, 2016 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) -20, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT - 9, MUMBAI 5. THE DR, F BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.