| |
| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 5041 (Mum-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 69C
Where assessee filed plethora of documents to substantiate impugned purchases but same were overlooked and much stress was placed on fact that notices issued to suppliers under section 133(6) were not responded to which was not in assessee's control, addition under section 69C was deleted.
|
Income from undisclosed sources - Addition under section 69C - Assessee filed plethora of documents to substantiate impugned purchases - No response to notices sent to suppliers under section 133(6)
AO held purchases claimed by the assessee as bogus liable for addition under section 69C on the ground that notices sent under section 133(6) were not responded to by any of the suppliers.Held: It was not the case that notices had returned back unserved by postal authorities but it is a fact that notices were served upon suppliers which establish that the parties were in existence at given addresses. It is another fact that one of the entities was already under liquidation and taken over by official liquidator. Another fact to be noted is that there was considerable time lag of more than 8 years between purchases made by assessee and confirmation sought by department and hence, there was every possibility that notices might not be responded by concerned suppliers. Moreover, assessee had filed plethora of documents to substantiate impugned purchases such as State Sales Tax/VAT returns, registration under Excise Laws/Service Tax and copies of C Form, etc., Nothing on record suggested that supplier entities, in any manner, had been declared as Hawala / Bogus dealers by any of the authorities. The totality of all these facts demonstrated that assessee was able to produce overwhelming documents to substantiate purchase as pitied against revenue's stand that notices under section 133(6) were not responded to. However, even response to notice under section 133(6) was not within the control of assessee and the same were to be replied to by the third party suppliers. The factual matrix as well as documentary evidences, was tilted more in favour of the assessee and, therefore, addition was deleted.
Relied:CIT v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd. 92015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 1855 (Bom-HC). Distinguished:CIT v. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P) Ltd. (2015) 376 ITR 373 (Del) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 992 (Del-HC).
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2008-09
IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|