Merely non-appearance of the supplier Does Not Mean Bogus Purchases

M/s Beauty Tax vs. DCIT (ITAT Jaipur)

The only grievance of the Assessing Officer is that the assessee has failed to produce the party so as to establish genuineness of the transaction and secondly, no payment has been made to the party till the year end.

The ld.CIT(A) while confirming the disallowance has stated that though confirmation has been obtained from the party, however, a simple confirmation is not sufficient to establish the fact of purchase without elaborating what more is required from the assessee to justify its claim. Regarding non appearance of the supplier, the assessee has submitted that the supplier was based in Delhi and he has denied coming to Jaipur but at the same time, he has sent its requisite confirmation directly to the department by the registered post.

Further the amount outstanding against the said purchases has been paid by account payee cheque in April and May, 2015 and now there is no outstanding amount against the said supplier. Regarding the other details submitted by the assessee, namely copy of Ledger amount and purchase bill of M/s Mahaveer Textiles, copy of the confirmation of the amount sent by M/s Mahaveer Textile Mills to the department and the fact that the materials so purchased form part of the turnover and which has been exported, there is no finding by the Assessing Officer as to reasons for non acceptance of the said documents and in absence of that, the stand taken by the Revenue cannot be accepted.

Merely non-appearance of the supplier in absence of any other corroborate evidence cannot be a basis to justify the stand of the Revenue that the transaction of purchase is bogus. In the result the purchases made from M/s Mahaveer Textiles have not been proved to be bogus by the Revenue and the said additions cannot be sustained in the eye of law in absence of any conclusive evidence brought on record.

Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments