Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - AhmedabadGujarat Ambuja Exports Limited, ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 29 April, 2014IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL " A " BENCH, AHMEDABAD
 (BEFORE SHRI D.K. TYAGI, J.M. & SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M.)


                            I.T. A. No. 2392/AHD/2013
                          (Assessment Year: 2010-2011)

       The DCIT, Circle-4,           V/S Gujarat Ambuja Exports
       Ahmedabad                         Limited Ambuja House, Opp.
                                         Memnagar Dire station,
                                         Navrangpura, Ahmedabad
       (Appellant)                        (Respondent)


                             PAN: AAACG 3908A


         Appellant by        : Shri Subhash Bains, CIT. D.R.
         Respondent by       : Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.R. Al. with
                                       Parin Shah, A.R.

                                  आदे श)/ORDER(आदे

Date of hearing                   : 29-04-2014
Date of Pronouncement             : 30 -05-2014

PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI,A.M.1.      This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)-VIII,
          Ahmedabad dated 15.07.2013 for A.Y. 2010-2011.2.      The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under.3.      Assessee is a company stated to be engaged in the business of Agro
          Processing and Agro Based Products. Assessee electronically filed his
          return of income for A.Y. 2010-2011 on 12.10.2010 declaring total
                                                   2         ITA No 2392/AHD/2013
.                                                           A.Y. 2010-2011

         income of Rs. 64,56,11,410/- which was later revised on 30.09.2011 by
         revising the total income to Rs. 64,10,35,960/-. The case was selected
         for scrutiny and thereafter the assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) vide
         order dated 18.03.2013 and the total income was determined at Rs.
         73,60,50,933/-. Aggrieved by the order of A.O, Assessee carried the
         matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) vide order dated 15.07.2013 granted
         substantial relief to the Assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the
         Revenue is now in appeal before us and has raised the following effective
         ground:-The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,31,09,522/- made on
         account of purchases made from M/s. Amber Trading Co., Dahod treating it as bogus and non-genuine
         as the said firm had failed to prove the purchases made from farmers and unregistered dealers with
         cogent evidence.4.   During the course of assessment proceedings, A.O noticed that Assessee
         had shown purchase of Soyabean of Rs. 29,22,03,327/- from Amber
         Trading Co. A.O noted that while framing assessments in the case of
         Assessee for A.Y. 08-09 & 09-10 the purchases made by Assessee from
         Amber Trading Co. to the extent of its purchase from unregistered
         dealers were treated as bogus and non genuine. The A.O. therefore asked
         the Assessee to prove the genuineness of purchases. From the details
         furnished, A.O noted that out of the total sales of Rs. 29,22,03,327/-made by Amber Trading to Assessee, goods worth Rs. 19,90,93,805/-
         were purchased by Amber Trading from registered dealers and the
         balance purchases of Rs. 9,31,09,522/- were from unregistered dealers.
         A.O also noted that Assessee did not produce the proprietor of Amber
         Trading for examination. He therefore held that Assessee had not brought
         any new evidence to prove the purchases. He also noted that similar
                                               3         ITA No 2392/AHD/2013
.                                                       A.Y. 2010-2011

    additions were made in A.Y. 08-09 and A.Y. 09-10 by A.O but were
    deleted by CIT(A) but however Revenue had filed appeal before Tribunal
    which was yet to be decided. He accordingly, to maintain consistency
    made addition of Rs. 9,31,09,522/- (of the purchase by Amber Trading
    from unregistered dealers). Aggrieved by the order of A.O, Assessee
    carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding
    as under:-2.4   Decision:I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the assessment order and various written
          submission made by the appellant. The assessing officer has made the addition of Rs.
          9,31,09,522/- on account of certain purchases made from M/s. Amber Trading Co by treating
          the same as bogus purchases as it were made from an unregistered dealer by Amber Trading
          Co. The assessing officer has held that similar additions were made for assessment year 2008-
          09 and assessment year 2009-10 and the appellant did not give any new evidence to prove the
          purchases and therefore, the same were treated as unexplained. It is noted that the additions
          made by the A.O have been deleted by Ld. CIT (A) for assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10.Further it is also noted that Honorable ITAT has also decided the appeal in favour of the
          appellant and upheld the order of CIT(A) by holding that the URD purchases of Amber
          trading   Co.    as    genuine    in    the   hands    of   the   appellant    company      (ITA
          No.126.127&494/Ahd/2012 Dated 17.04.2013). An examination of the facts indicates that the
          facts of the current year are identical to the facts of earlier year i.e. assessment year 2008-09
          and 2009 -10. The appellant has submitted a certificate from Amber trading Co. Dahod
          indicating the amount of RD purchases. Contra account from Amber trading Co. was
          furnished during the course of assessment proceedings. Regarding the observation of the A.O
          regarding non-production of the proprietor of Amber trading Co. it is noted that he did not
          issue any summons under section 131. The appellant was also not informed about non-
          production or non-attendance of the proprietor. The nature of URD purchases are also
          similar to earlier years. These facts clearly show that the facts are added exactly identical to
          earlier years and therefore, respectfully following the judgment of my predecessors and
          Honourable ITAT Ahmedabad, the disallowance of purchases made by the A.O is directed to
          be deleted.4        ITA No 2392/AHD/2013
.                                                             A.Y. 2010-20115.   Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before
         us.6.   Before us, the ld. D.R. relied on the order of A.O. On the other hand ld.A.R. submitted that on identical facts for assessment year 07-08 to 09-10
         the Hon'ble Tribunal decided the issue in favour of Assessee. He further
         submitted that against the order of Tribunal, Revenue had preferred
         appeal before Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and the Hon'ble Gujarat High
         Court confirmed the order of Tribunal. He placed on record the copies of
         the aforesaid orders of High Court and Tribunal. He therefore submitted
         that since the issue under appeal are identical to that of earlier years and
         since in earlier years, the issue has been decided in favour of Assessee no
         addition was called for. He thus supported the order of CIT(A).7.   We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record.We find that for assessment order 07-08, 08-09 & 09-10, the issue on
         identical facts was decided by Hon'ble Tribunal in IT(SS)A Nos. 123,
         124 & 481/AHD/2012 in favour of the Assessee by holding as under:-3.7 Now, we are left with grounds No.3 & 4 of the revenue's appeal. Regarding ground No.3 of the
         revenue's appeal, we find that a disallowance of Rs.2119.45 lacs was made by the A.O. on account of
         alleged false purchase from Amber Trading Co. This disallowance was deleted by Ld. CIT (A) by
         making following observations in para 14.3 of his order:"14.3 M/s. Amber Trading Co., Dahod has accepted that the goods are sold to the appellant, produced
         all such evidences that such goods are delivered at the factory of the appellant and appellant has made
         payment for goods so purchased by account payee cheque, and the appellant also produced all the
         necessary evidences to prove genuineness of the impugned purchases, after all such materials on
         records, there is no scope for AO to treat the purchases as non-genuine. Furthermore the Assessing
         Officer of the firm (M/s. Amber Trading Co.) treated the URD purchases of M/s. Amber Trading Co.,
         Dahod as genuine, then there is no space left for imagination that the URD purchases of the supplier
         (M/s. Amber Trading Co.) are bogus. Accordingly, I direct the Assessing Officer to treat all such URD
         purchases as genuine and direct to delete addition of Rs.21,19,45,382/-. Ground No. 1 related to M/s.
         Amber Trading Co, Dahod is allowed."3.8 Ld. D.R. supported the assessment order whereas ld. A.R. supported the order of CIT(A).
         3.9      We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material on record and have gone
         through the orders of authorities below. We find that the disallowance in respect of purchases from
         Amber Trading Company was made by the A.O. on this basis that out of total purchases claimed by the
                                                    5         ITA No 2392/AHD/2013
.                                                            A.Y. 2010-2011
         assessee from Amber Trading Co. of Rs.4123.10 lacs, total un registered dealers (URD) purchases
         made by Amber Trading Co. in assessment year 2008-09 is Rs.2119.45 lacs. The A.O. was of
         the view that the URD purchases of Amber Trading Co. is bogus and as a consequence, the purchases
         of the assessee company from company from Amber Trading Co. is also to be held as bogus to the
         extent of URD purchases of Amber Trading Co. Hence, it is seen that the disallowance in the present
         case was made on this basis that to the extent of URD purchases of Amber Trading Company held to
         be bogus, the purchases of the assessee company from Amber Trading Company is also to be held as
         bogus. Now, we find that it is noted by Ld. CIT (A) in the above para that the A.O. of the firm M/s.
         Amber Trading Company treated the URD purchases of M/s. Amber Trading Co. as genuine. Once,
         the URD purchases of M/s. Amber Trading Co. is accepted as genuine by the A.O. of that party, the
         disallowance made by the A.O. in this regard cannot be sustained because it has no legs to stand.
         Accordingly, we decide this aspect of the matter in favour of the assessee. Thus, Ground No.3 of the
         revenue's appeal is also rejected.8.   Against the order of Hon'ble Tribunal, Revenue carried the matter before
         Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Tax Appeal
         No. 845/A/2013 order dated 10.02.2014 confirming the order of Tribunal
         decided the issue as under:-Questions (C)& (D) pertain to purchases made by the assessee through one M/s. Amber Trading
         Company, Dahod. Assessing Officer disallowed the purchases on the ground that M/s. Amber Trading
         Company had made purchases from an unregistered dealer. He, in fact, doubted the purchases by M/s.
         Amber Trading Company itself.Learned counsel for the assessee would however correctly point out that CIT(A) as well as the
         Tribunal both noted that in the case of the assessment of M/s. Amber Trading Companyitself, such
         purchases were accepted and found genuine. That being the situation, the Tribunal in our opinion
         correctly did not accept the Revenue's appeal, making following observations:-9.   Before us, it is admitted by both the parties that the facts of the case in
         the year under appeal are identical to that of earlier years. Even CIT(A)
         while deciding the appeal has held that the facts of the case in the year
         under appeal are identical to the facts for A.y. 08-09 and 2009-10.
         CIT(A) while deleting the addition has also noted that A.O did not issue
         any summons u/s. 131 of the Act to Amber Trading Company and
         Assessee was also not informed about non production or non attendance
         of proprietor. We further find that similar disallowance made in earlier
         years were deleted by the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal and the order of
         the Co-ordinate Bench was also upheld by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court.
         Before us, Revenue has not brought any contrary material on record in its
                                           6      ITA No 2392/AHD/2013
.                                                A.Y. 2010-2011

          support. In view of the foregoing, we find no reason to interfere with the
          order of CIT(A) and thus uphold his order. In the result, this ground of
          Revenue is dismissed.10.   In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.Order pronounced in Open Court on 30 - 05 - 2014.Sd/-                                            Sd/-
   (D.K. TYAGI)                                      (ANIL CHATURVEDI)
 JUDICIAL MEMBER                                    ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Ahmedabad.                   TRUE COPY
Rajesh

Copy of the Order forwarded to:-
1.    The Appellant.
2.    The Respondent.
3.    The CIT (Appeals) -
4.    The CIT concerned.
5.    The DR., ITAT, Ahmedabad.
6.    Guard File.
                                                         By ORDER



                                                    Deputy/Asstt.Registrar
                                                      ITAT,Ahmedabad