Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Tribunal held that ,the assessee which is in the business of manufacturing cycle/cycle rims- The item-wise break-up of each and every purchase item along with comparative figures of the previous years was furnished .All the payments have been made by account payee cheque/bank draft- All the payments have been made by account payee cheque. Sample copies of the bills raised by those parties were submitted and it was stated that the bills contained the complete address of the parties, their TIN Nos. etc. Further, the purchases have been made against C Forms which have been duly issued by the assessee company .The fact that the vendors are not available at the given address is not sufficient to treat the purchases as bogus if the assessee has discharged primary onus and substantiated the purchases through documentary evidence and payment is made through banking channels. None of these documents have been proved to be false or untrue and thus the initial burden cast on the assessee was duly discharged. Deletion of addition by the CIT(A) is affirmed. Referred thedecision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.K. Proteins Ltd. v. DCIT, (2004) 83 TTJ 904 (Ahd) (Trb), N.K .Industries v Dy.CIT ( 2016) 292 CTR 354/ 72 taxmann.com 289 ( Guj) (HC), N.K.Protins Ltd v. Dy.CIT ( 2017) 250 taxman 22 (SC) Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. ACIT ( 1996)58 ITD 428 ( Ahd) (Trib), affirmed in Vijay Protins Ltd v. CIT ( 2015) 58 taxmann.com 44 (Guj) (HC).( ITA No.6599/Del/2014, dt. 12.12.2018)(AY. 2011-12)
ACIT v. Karam Chand Rubber Industries (P) Ltd ( 2019) 174 DTR 142/ 197 TTJ 555(Delhi)(Trib),www.itatonline.org
S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure – Bogus purchases – Business of manufacturing cycle/cycle rims- The item-wise break-up of each and every purchase item along with comparative figures of the previous years was furnished – All the payments have been made by account payee cheque/bank draft- All the payments have been made by account payee cheque- Sample copies of the bills raised by those parties were submitted and it was stated that the bills contained the complete address of the parties, their TIN Nos., etc. Further, the purchases have been made against C Forms which have been duly issued by the assessee company-The fact that the vendors are not available at the given address is not sufficient to treat the purchases as bogus if the assessee has discharged primary onus and substantiated the purchases through documentary evidence and payment is made through banking channels. None of these documents have been proved to be false or untrue and thus the initial burden cast on the assessee was duly discharged- Decision of the CIT(A) is deleting the addition is affirmed .[ S.143(3) ]