ITA No. 274/JP/2013, (Assessment Year: 2008-2009). Case: Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2 Vs Gem Plaza. ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | ITA No. 274/JP/2013, (Assessment Year: 2008-2009) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Raj Mehra, JCIT and For Respondents: Madhukar Garg, CA |
| Judges | R.P. Tolani, Member (J) and T.R. Meena, Member (A) |
| Issue | Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 143(3), 145(3), 194H, 40(a)(ia) |
| Judgement Date | July 17, 2015 |
| Court | ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
T.R. Meena, Member (A), (ITAT Jaipur Bench)
-
This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order dated 10/12/2012 passed by the learned CIT (A)-I, Jaipur for A.Y. 2008-09. The effective grounds of appeal are as under:-
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) was justified in:-
1 deleting the addition made by the A.O. on account of unverifiable purchases from the party who was engaged in providing bogus bills.
2. deleting the addition made by the A.O. u/s. 40(a)(ia) on account of non deduction of TDS on credit card commission.
-
First ground of appeal is against deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unverifiable purchases. The ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee firm is engaged in business of trading and export of gems, jewellery and handicrafts. The assessee filed its return of income on 22/09/2008 declaring total income of Rs. 34,38,520/-. The case was scrutinized U/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act). The ld. Assessing Officer further observed that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish day to day details of all types of stock in terms of opening, purchases and closing alongwith their quality categorization, if any and values, but he failed because he was not maintaining stock register. On examination of purchase details, it was found that the assessee had shown purchase from the following party:
It is further observed that during the inquiry conducted by the department, proprietor of M/s. Aditya Gems namely Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain could not establish the genuineness of transaction done by him. His statement was also recorded, which has been reproduced on page Nos. 4 and 5 of the assessment order. From perusal of the statement, it was clear that proprietor of the above said concern had failed to prove the genuineness of his business. He relied on the various case laws i.e.:
(a) M/s. Indian Woolen Carpet Factory Vs. ITAT & Ors. (2002) 178 CTR 420 (Raj) and M.P. High Court in the case of VISP (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 186 CTR 718 (MP)
(b) CIT Vs. Precision Finance P. Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Cal).
(c) CIT Vs. Golcha Prop Pvt. Ltd. 227 ITR 391 (Raj)
(d) CIT Vs. La Medica 250 ITR 575 (Del).
He also relied on the other case laws, which is reproduced on page No. 10 of the assessment order. The ld. Assessing Officer observed that from the above case laws and discussion, it is crystal clear...
To continue reading
Request your trial