Income-tax Officer, Nashik V. M/s. Jaiprakash Strips Pvt. Ltd., Nashik

ITA 991/PUN/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 99124514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 03-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEMANT KUMAR LEUVA
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL PATHAK
• Keywords: Bogus purchase
• Section: 69C; 143(3); 133A; 131; 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE BEFORE M S SUSHMA CHOWLA , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 991 /PN/201 1 ITA NO. 991 /PN/201 1 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1999 - 200 0 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, NASHIK . APPE LLANT VS. JAIPRAKASH STRIPS PVT. LTD. , 17, DEHBHANU COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, OPP. VIDYUT BHAVAN, NASHIK ROAD. . RESPONDENT PAN: AAACJ5825B A PPELLANT BY : SHRI HEMANT KUMAR LEUVA RESPONDENT BY : S HRI SUNIL PATHAK DATE OF HEARING : 2 7 - 0 5 - 201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 - 0 5 - 201 5 ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) - I, NASHIK DATED 2 7 . 05 .201 1 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 200 0 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 14 4 R.W.S. 254 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 . 2 . THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) - I, NASIK, WHILE GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE, ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT, PUNE. ASSE SSING OFFICER FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT, PUNE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRE CIATE THE FACT THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ADDITION O F RS. 86,98,171/ - , ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES, WAS MADE FOR THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE REGARDING RECEIPT/DELIVERY OF THE RAW MATERIAL. NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT OR STATEMENT WAS RELIED ON BY ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE MA K ING THE ADDITION . 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE HON BLE ITAT, IN PARA 4 OF ITS ORDER, HAS ONLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVIDE COPIES OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT/STATEMENT, IF ANY , USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE . SINCE NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT/STATEMENT WAS USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WHILE FINALIZING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT QUESTION OF PROVIDING COPIES OF ANY FINALIZING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT QUESTION OF PROVIDING COPIES OF ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT/STATEMENT TO THE ASSESSEE WHILE FINALIZING THE SET - ASIDE ASSESSMENT DOES NOT ARISE . ITA NO . 991 /PN/20 1 1 JAIPRAKASH STRIPS PVT . LTD. 2 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - I, NASIK REQUIRES TO BE VACATED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER UPHELD/RESTORED. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND/ALTER OR RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS IN FUTURE, IF NECES SARY. FUTURE, IF NECES SARY. 3. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF RS.86,98,171/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES . 4. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD FURNISHED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 5,71,640/ - . HOWEVER, AS PER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME T O THE TUNE OF R S. 86,98,171/ - ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENT THERETO, THE REASONS WERE RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF S HRI ANIL K. GO YA L AND SHRI ASHWIN AGRAWAL I.E. GROUP OF DOM BIWALI ON 17.12.1998 , IT WAS FOUND THAT BOTH THE ABOVE SAID PERSONS WERE RUNNING VARIOUS CONCERNS FOR ISSUING BOGUS BILLS FOR SALE OF VARIOUS ITEMS OF STEEL ON CHARGING COMMISSIO N @ 2%. SALE REGIS TERS RELATING TO TWO CONCERNS M/S. SAMRUDHI EXIM PVT. LTD. , DOM BIWALI AND SANTOSH ENTERPRISES WERE FOUND DURING SAMRUDHI EXIM PVT. LTD. , DOM BIWALI AND SANTOSH ENTERPRISES WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. SURVEY INVESTIGATION ALSO REVEALED THAT M/S. SANTOSH ENTERPRISES HAD ISSUED BILLS TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SCRAPS FROM SEPTEMB ER , 1998 ONWARDS. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE TWO CONCERNS WAS RS.86,98,171/ - . THE FINDING OF ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT THE SAID TWO CONCERNS NEVER DELIVERED ANY GOODS TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEY DID NOT HAVE ANY GOODS WITH THEM AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. FURTHER, PURCHASES WERE SHOWN TO ANY GOODS WITH THEM AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. FURTHER, PURCHASES WERE SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE SAID GROUP FROM NON - EXISTING CONCERNS AND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, BILL BOOKS, LETTER PADS OF SUCH NON - EXISTING CONCERNS WERE ITA NO . 991 /PN/20 1 1 JAIPRAKASH STRIPS PVT . LTD. 3 FOUND. ANOTHER POINT NOTED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WAS THAT AGRAWAL / G OYAL GROUP AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE LIKE THE TRANSPORT RECEIPTS / RRS IN RESPECT OF THE GOODS TRANSPORTED FROM MUMBAI TO SINNAR. IN REPLY, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE SAID GOODS WE RE RECEIVED ON FOR AND PAYMENT HAD BEEN MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. HOWEVER, DURING ENQUIRIES ON THE PREMISES AT SINNAR NEITHER THE GOODS RECEIVED WERE FOUND NOR THE ASSESSEE MADE THEM AVAILABLE FOR VERIFICATION. IN THE LIGHT OF THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW CAUSED AS TO WHY THE SAID PURCHASES SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS NON - GENUINE. DESPITE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES AFFORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTARY PROOF / EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IN VIEW THEREOF, HELD THE SAID PURCHASES TOTALING RS. 86,98,171/ - AS BOGUS PURCHASES FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: - 1. BOTH THE CONCERNS OF M/S. SANTOSH ENTERPRISES AND SAMRUDHI EXIM PVT. LTD. WERE FOUND TO BE BOGUS AND NO T EXISTING CONCERNS. 2. P AYMENTS MADE BY ASSESSEE TO M/S. SHAILESH KUMAR AND BROS. CANNOT BE TAKEN AS PAYMENTS MADE ON BEHALF OF AFORESAID BOGUS CANNOT BE TAKEN AS PAYMENTS MADE ON BEHALF OF AFORESAID BOGUS CONCERNS. EQUALLY THE LETTER DATED 21.07.1999 BY SANTOSH ENTERPRISES HAS NO LOCUS STANDI IN VIEW OF THE FACTUAL FINDINGS DURING SURVEY BY KALYAN OFFICE. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AT SINNAR ON 12.05.1999 NOR DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD SINCE THEN TILL DATE HAS BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENT SUCH AS TRANSPORT RECEIPTS / OCTROI RECEIPTS / R R ETC. NO STOCK REGISTER HAS BEEN FOUND NOR PRODUCED DURING THE ABOVE ENQUIRIES. 5. FURTHER, ADDITION OF RS.1,73,963/ - WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID FOR OBTAINING THE SAID PURCHASE BILLS. 6. THE CIT(A) IN THE FIRST ROUND OF APPEAL S VIDE ORDE R DATED 15.11.2006 UPHELD THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.122/PN/2007, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 2000 , VIDE ORDER DATED 13.11.2009 REMANDED THE ISSUE BACK TO TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO SUPPLY THE INCRIMINATING BACK TO TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO SUPPLY THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL OR THE STATEMENTS, IF ANY, GATHERED BY THE REVENUE, TO THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO OFFER CROSS - EXAMINATION OF ITA NO . 991 /PN/20 1 1 JAIPRAKASH STRIPS PVT . LTD. 4 THE PERSONS WHO HAD GIVEN IN CRIMINATING STATEMENTS AND ACCORDINGLY, THE MATTER WAS SET - ASIDE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE PROCEEDINGS GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE ASKED FOR THE COPIES OF STATEMENTS RECORDED OF SHRI AGRAWAL AND SHRI GOEL AND MADE A REQUEST THAT CROSS - EXAMINATION OF THE SAID PERSONS WAS ALSO REQUESTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPONSE, ISSUED SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT TO SHRI ASHWINI AGRAWAL AND ANIL KUMAR GOEL AND ALSO ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR ON 16.12.20 10 . HOWEVER, THE SAID NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY AFFIXTURE ON THE ADDRESS OF THE COMPANY, BUT ON THE SAID DATE OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE OTHER TWO PERSONS. ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY IN THIS REGARD WAS GIVEN TO THE ASS ESSEE AND THE NOTICE WAS SERVED BY AFFIXTURE ON THE AVAILABLE ADDRESS . HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE TO THE SAID NOTICE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER UPHELD THE ADDITION ORIGINALLY MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTI ON 144 R.W.S. 254 OF THE ACT. 7. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IT HAD CHANGED ITS 7. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IT HAD CHANGED ITS ADDRESS AND THE NOTICE WAS AFFIXED AT THE OLD ADDRESS AND HENCE, THE NON - COMPLIANCE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS . THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE WAS NEVER SUPPLIED WITH THE COPIES OF STATEMENTS OF SHRI ANIL KUMAR GOEL AND THE OTHER PERSON AND NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS EVER SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON 18.05.2011 , THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUPPLIED THE COPY OF STATEMENT OF SHRI ANIL KUMAR GOEL RECORDED IN SURVEY ACTION ON 18.01.1999 TO THE ASSESSEE. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS A ND REFERRED TO THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ANIL KUMAR GOEL, IN WHICH HE HAD ADMITTED TO HAVE BEEN CARRYING OUT THE TRADING IN IRON AND STEEL. IN REPLY TO QUERY NO.10 , SHRI ANIL KUMAR GOEL WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN DELIVERY OF GOODS . T HE ALLEGATION OF SURVEY TEAM WA S THAT THE SAID PERSON HAD ISSUED THE BILLS WITHOUT DELIVERY OF GOODS. IN REPLY, SHRI ANIL KUMAR GOEL STATED THAT HE HAD SOLD THE GOODS THROUGH BROKERS AND ALL THE BILLS WERE ISSUED AGAINST SUPPLIED GOODS. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT BY HIM THAT ALL THE SALE ITA NO . 991 /PN/20 1 1 JAIPRAKASH STRIPS PVT . LTD. 5 BILLS WERE SUPPORTED WITH DELIVERY CHALLANS. HE FURTHER ADMITTED TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, BUT MADE AN OFFER OF ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.25 LAKHS. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS THAT THE PERUSAL OF STATEMENT OF SHRI ANIL KUMA R GOEL MAKES IT EVIDEN T THAT THE RELIANCE PLACED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR TR EATING THE PURCHASES FROM THE SAID PARTY AS BOGUS WAS MIS - PLACED. FURTHER, IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE THAT FROM THE RESULTS OF SURVEY ACTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ON THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE SURVEY IN THE CASE OF ANIL KUMAR GOEL, IT COULD BE NOTICED THAT NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INVOLVED IN SHOWING BO GUS PURCHASES HAD BEEN FOUND. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT IN THE SAID SURVEY ACTION, THE STOCK PHYSICALLY FOUND WAS TALLIED WITH THE STOCK AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND FURTHER IN SUPPORT OF THE GOODS RECEIVED, GNR GOODS RECEIVED HAD BEEN FOUND. FURTHER, ALL THE PAYMENTS AGAINST THE PURCHASES WERE MADE THROU GH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES / DEMAND DRAFTS. IN RESPECT OF THE SECOND STATEMENT RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NO COPY OF THE SAME WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, ON WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER CLAIMS TO HAVE RELIED, WA S SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE THOUGH, SO DIRECTED BY PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF TRIBUNAL TO SUPPLY THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL AND THE STATEMENTS RECORDED BY THE REVENUE. IT WAS FURTHER HELD BY THE CIT(A) THAT ONLY STATEMENT OF ANIL KUMAR GOEL WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH COULD NOT BE TREATED AS INCRIMINATING MATERIAL. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FAILED TO OFFER CROSS - EXAMINATION OF THE PERSONS, WH O HAD GIVEN INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN THE ADDITION MADE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 88,72,134/ - . 8. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF CIT(A) POINTING OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAD MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 86,98,171/ - ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE REGARDING RECEIPT / DELIVERY OF RAW MATERIAL S. IT WAS FURTHER ALLGED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO PROVIDE COPIES OF INCRIMINATING ITA NO . 991 /PN/20 1 1 JAIPRAKASH STRIPS PVT . LTD. 6 DOCUMENTS / STATEMENTS, IF ANY, USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. WHERE NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS / STATEMENTS WERE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF PROVIDING THE COPIES OF THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE. 9. T HE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND POINTED OUT THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE DELIVERY OF THE SAID ITEMS, MERELY BECAUSE THE SALE C ONSIDERATION WAS PAID IN CHEQUE, D OES NOT ESTABLISH THE DELIVERY OF THE SAID GOODS TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND, POINTED OUT THAT IN THE SECOND ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A), ONLY COPY OF ONE STATEMENT WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE , T HOUGH DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RELIED ON TWO STATEMENTS RECORDED. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED OF SHRI A NIL KUMAR GOEL, HE CATEGORICALLY ADMITS THAT GOODS WERE SOLD BY HIM AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CATEGORICALLY ADMITS THAT GOODS WERE SOLD BY HIM AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THERE WAS NO MERIT IN THE AFORESAID ADDITION. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE F URTHER REFERRED TO THE LIST OF BOOKS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY , WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 13 OF PAPER BOOK 3. ANOTHER RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DELIVERY RECORD OF GOODS RECEIVED AND DELIVERY , WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 13 TO 30 OF PAPER BOOK 2 . OF PAPER BOOK 2 . 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN IRON AND STEEL. SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 17.12.1998 ON SHRI ANIL KUMAR GOEL AND ASHWINI AGRAWAL GROUP O F DOM BIWALE . THE SAID PERSONS WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE ISSUED BOGUS BILLS FOR THE SALE OF VARIOUS ITEMS OF STEEL THROUGH T WO OF THEIR CONCERNS, WHO IN TURN, HAD ISSUED BILLS OF SALE OF GOODS TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. THE TOTAL PURCHASE VALUE OF THE GOODS TH ROUGH SUCH ALLEGED BOGUS BILLS WERE RS.86,98,171/ - . AS PER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE ITA NO . 991 /PN/20 1 1 JAIPRAKASH STRIPS PVT . LTD. 7 PRESENT ASSESSEE BEFORE US, THE SAID TWO CONCERNS NEVER DELIVERED THE GOODS TO THE ASSESSEE , SINCE THERE WERE NO GOODS FOUND FROM THEIR POS SESSION DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. FURTHER, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HA D FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE DELIVERY OF GOODS THROUGH TRANSPORT RECEIPTS, THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAID TRANSACTION WAS DOUBTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEAR ING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING, THE MATTER WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE RESULTING IN ADDITION OF RS. 86,98,171/ - ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES AND ADDITION OF RS. 1,73,963/ - ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION OUT OF UN DISCLOSED SOURCES. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FAILED TO SUPPLY THE COPIES OF STATEMENTS RECORDED, WHICH WERE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE NOR THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED TO CROSS - EXAMINE THE SAID PERSONS. FUR THER, CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS T HAT THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS, IF ANY, FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, WERE NEVER CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE PLEAS OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE OF NON - APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE BUILT UP A CASE AGAINST THE REVENUE AND THE TRIBUNAL IN THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE WAS DIRECTED TO SUPPLY THE COPIES OF STATEMENTS RECORDED AND ALSO THE COPIES OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED VARIOUS NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH REMAINED UN - COMPLIED WITH AN D CONSEQUENTLY, THE ADDITION ORIGINALLY MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS UPHELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S. 254 OF THE ACT. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT IT HAD CHANGED ITS ADDRESS AND CONSEQUE NTLY, THE SAID NOTICES COULD NOT BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. WITH REGARD TO THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPLY THE COPIES OF STATEMENT AND THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, ON THE PERSON INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, ON THE PERSON ALLEGING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE BO GUS PURCHASES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPEARED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND FORWARDED THE COPY OF STATEMENT OF SHRI ANIL ITA NO . 991 /PN/20 1 1 JAIPRAKASH STRIPS PVT . LTD. 8 KUMAR GOEL. NO OTHER DOCUMENTS WITH REGARD TO THE STATEMENTS RECORDED OF ANY OTHER PERSON, AND / OR THE COPIES OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS, IF ANY, WERE FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE PERUSAL OF THE SAID STATEMENTS RECORDED OF SHRI ANIL KUMAR GOEL, WHICH IN TURN, IS REPRODUCED AT PAGES 3 AND 4 UNDER PARA 8 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER, IT TRANSPIRES THAT SHRI ANIL KUMAR GOEL ADMITTED THAT HE WAS TRADI NG IN IRON AND STEEL AND THE MATERIAL WAS PURCHASED FROM THE MARKET AND WAS SOLD AT NOMINAL PROFITS. THE SAID MATERIAL WAS PURCHASED AND SOLD THROUGH BROKERS. THE SAID PERSON WAS CONFRONTED AS TO NON - SUPPORT OF SALE BILLS WITH ANY DELIVERY CHALLANS . IN REPLY TO WHICH, THE PLEA OF THE SAID PERSON WAS THAT ALL THE SALE BILLS WERE SUPPORTED WITH THE SAID CHALLANS. HE FURTHER ADMITTED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO WERE GENUINE TRANSACTIONS. THE SAID PERSON SHRI ANIL KUMAR GOEL THROUGH ITS CONCERNS HAD SOLD GOODS WORTH RS.86,98,171/ - TO THE ASSESSEE . 12. THE QUESTION ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SAID CONCERNS. THE CASE OF PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SAID CONCERNS. THE CASE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT THE SAID PERSONS IN THE STATEMENTS R ECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AT THEIR PREMISES HAD ADMITTED THAT IT WAS ISSUING BOGUS BILLS AND HAD NEVER DELIVERED GOODS TO THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE ASKED FOR THE COPIES OF SAID STATEMENTS, WH ICH WERE BEING USED AGAINST HIM AND ALSO ASKED FOR CROSS - EXAMINATION OF THE SAID PERSONS , BUT NO SUCH OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE ASSESSEE , EVEN THE COPIES OF THE STATEMENTS WERE NOT SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE. ANOTHER PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SUPPLY OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WAS ALSO BRUSHED ASIDE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ADDITION WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SAID CONCERNS AND FURTHER, THE ADDITION WAS MAD E ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID FOR OBTAINING THE BILLS FOR BOGUS PURCHASES AT RS. 1,73,963/ - . THE MATTER TRAVELLED TO THE TRIBUNAL AND THEREAFTER, IT WAS SENT BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO IN TURN COMPLETED ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE OF NON - COMPLIANCE OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY ITA NO . 991 /PN/20 1 1 JAIPRAKASH STRIPS PVT . LTD. 9 THE ASSESSING OFFICER . HOWEVER, BEFORE THE CIT(A), BOTH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSEE APPEARED ON 18.05.2011 . THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUPPLIED THE COPY OF STATEMENT OF ONE SHRI ANIL KUMAR GOE L RECORDED IN SURVEY ACTION ON 18.01.1999 . AS POINTED OUT BY US IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE, IN THE SAID STATEMENT, SHRI ANIL KUMAR GOEL NOWHERE ADMITTED TO HAVE INDULGED IN BOGUS TRANSACTIONS. ON THE OTHER HAND, HE STATED TO HAVE ENGAGED IN GENUINE TRANSAC TIONS. FURTHER, THERE IS NO ADMISSION OF SHRI ANIL KUMAR GOEL THAT HE HAD SUPPLIED BILLS AGAINST BOGUS PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, HE STATED THAT THE SALES WERE SUPPORTED BY DELIVERY CHALLANS. IT MAY BE PUT ON RECORD THAT SURVEY O N THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON 12.05.1999 I.E. PURSUANT TO THE SURVEY CONDUCTED ON SHRI ANIL KUMAR GOEL. THE STATEMENT OF SHRI JAIPRAKASH WAS RECORDED ON 12.05.1999, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD. THE AS SESSEE IN THE STATEMENT ADMITTED THAT IT WAS MAKING PURCHASES FROM VARIOUS PAR TIES INCLUDING THE TWO CONCERNS, WHICH WERE REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE TRANSPORTATION CHARGES IN RESPECT OF THE S OME CONCERNS WERE BORNE BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE OTHER CONCERNS, IT WAS ON FOR BASIS. THE ASSESSEE WAS QUESTIONED AS TO THE PURCHASES MADE FROM THE SAID CONCERNS AND ALSO MODE OF PAYMENT , TO WHICH, HE ADMITTED TO HAVE MADE THE PAYMENTS THROUGH CHEQUE. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE A SSESSEE HAS REFERRED TO THE LIST OF BOOKS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 13 OF PAPER BOOK 3. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED ON RECORD THE SAMPLES OF GOODS RECEIVED NOTES, DELIVERY CHALLAN S ALONG WITH SUPPORTING BILLS AT PAGES 13 TO 32 OF PAPER BOOK 2. THE PERUSAL OF THE SAID DOCUMENTS REFLECTS THAT THE GOODS WERE PURCHASED THROUGH BILLS FROM THE SAID PARTIES, WHICH IN TURN HAVE BEEN DELIVERED AT THE PREMISES O F THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ENT IRE TY OF THE ABOVE SAID EVIDENCES FOUND AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS HAVING BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS HAVING BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE AFORESAID ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORIGINAL ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143 (3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT HAD ITA NO . 991 /PN/20 1 1 JAIPRAKASH STRIPS PVT . LTD. 10 ALLEGED THAT THE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE PURCHASES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HAD IN THEIR STATEMENTS RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ON THEIR PREMISES, ADMITTED THAT THE SAID SAL ES MADE BY THEM WERE BOGUS. HOWEVER, THE PERUSAL OF THE COPY OF STATEMENT FURNISHED AT PAGES 18 TO 24 OF PAPER BOOK, DOES NOT REFLECT ANY SUCH ADMISSION BY SHRI ANIL KUMAR GOEL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DESPITE THE DIRECTIONS OF TRIBUNAL HAS FAILED TO FORWA RD THE COPY OF STATEMENT OF OTHER PERSON RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. T HE ASSESSEE HAVING ESTABLISHED ITS CASE OF HAVING PURCHASED THE GO O DS , PAYMENT AGAINST WHICH WERE MADE THROUGH CHEQUE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE AFORESAID ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SAID PURCHASES. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE GROUNDS OF A PPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 1 3 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . ORDER P RONOUNCED ON THIS 29 TH DAY OF MAY , 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - ( R.K. PANDA ) ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 29 TH MAY , 2015 GCVSR COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE DEPARTMENT; 2) THE ASSESSEE; 3) THE CIT(A) - I, NASHIK ; 4) THE CIT - I, NASHIK ; 5) THE DR B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// SENIOR PRIVA TE SECRETARY SENIOR PRIVA TE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., PUNE