Case Law Details
Phool Singh Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
The assessee is regularly purchasing material from the above party and in the past the assessment under section 143(3) were made in case of the assessee wherein purchases from these parties are accepted. The purchases are made from the party through account payee cheques and the proper adequate bills supporting purchases were submitted. The assessee has submitted the confirmed copy of the account from the books of the supplier and also stated that he is assessed to income tax with ITO Ward 25/4 New Delhi.
Further regarding the address supplied by the assessee on which notices under section 133(6) remained unserved, assessee supplied the same address which is also shown in the income tax return of the supplier. Non compliance of summons under section 131 by the suppliers cannot be the concern of the assessee. It is not the case of the revenue that assessee was asked to produce the supplier. In fact purchases materials have been used at various sites. The material for Bill No. 1 was issued at Jaipur Site and similarly, bills with other material have gone to Mathura, Karuli, Rajgarh, Udaipur and other sites.
As the suppliers are separately assessed to tax the issue of the low balance is required to be addressed by them and it cannot be a reason for dis-allowance of the purchases from that party, as many times purchases are also made from bank borrowers. Furthermore, merely the assessee being the introducer for opening the bank account also do not support the contention of the assessing officer, unless there is some connivance of the assessee is proved in withdrawal of cash from the bank accounts. To verify this learned assessing officer could have obtained these instruments from the bank which he has failed to do. Further, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer has verified the books of accounts, bills, vouchers, master rolls, bed sheet and logbooks and on such verification, no defect in the books of the assessee was pointed out. The assessing officer made the whole addition by pointing out certain lacunas in the bank account of the suppliers of the assessee, which cannot be permitted.
Merely because 133(6) notices issued to the party returned un-served though it was the same address, which was supplied by supplier while filing its income tax return, no fault can be put on the shoulder of assessee. Further, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the finding of the learned assessing officer without giving any reason but merely reiterating the findings of the assessing officer. In view of this the addition made by the learned assessing officer of Rs. 2657303 from Suresh HYP Enterprises cannot be sustained and hence, deleted.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
