This appeal by the Revenue is against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals)-I, Jaipur dated 10.11.2014 pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. Cit (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 77,40,649/- made on account of bogus purchases claimed by assessee.

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) has erred in ignoring the evidences and statements relied upon AO, which proves beyond doubt that the purchases of Rs. 77,40,649/- were bogus. ITA No. 121/JP/2015 DCIT vs. Beauty Tax.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the case of the assessee was reopened and the assessment under section 147/143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was framed vide order dated 24 th January, 2014. The AO while framing the reopening assessment treated two purchases from Shri Ramesh Chandra Chhajer and Smt. Tara Devi Chhajer amounting to Rs. 38,09,688/- and Rs. 39,30,961/- respectively as bogus purchases. Accordingly he added back these amounts to the income of the assessee and assessed the income at Rs. 1,40,96,428/- against the income declared by the assessee at Rs.63,55,780/-. The assessee aggrieved by this order, preferred an appeal before ld. CIT (A) who after considering the submissions and relying on the decision of the coordinate Bench in the assessees own case in ITA No. 168/JP/2012, deleted the disallowance.

3. The only effective ground raised by the revenue is against deletion of addition of Rs. 77,40,649/- made on account of the purchases made by the assessee and treated by the AO as bogus.

3.1. The ld. Senior D/R vehemently argued that ld. CIT (A) was not justified in deleting the addition. The ld. D/R submitted that in the statement, the so called sellers have categorically stated that they had given only entry to the assessee. They have no capacity for maintaining this kind of stock and no sales were made to the assessee. The ld. D/R submitted that in the facts of the present case, ld. CIT (A) was in error to delete the addition.

3.2. On the contrary, the ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as are made in the written submissions filed on 10 th May, 2016. The ld. Counsel relied on the order of the ld. CIT (A) and submitted that the AO has not rejected the books of the assessee firm under section 145 of the Act. The AO has not pointed ITA No. 121/JP/2015 DCIT vs. Beauty Tax. out any defect/discrepancies in the books of account. All the material details pertaining to the accounts have been duly accepted by the AO. He submitted that in case purchases made from these parties are excluded, in that event the export sales which are duly accepted by the concerned authorities would not remain there. The ld. Counsel submitted that the statement was recorded at the back of the assessee. No opportunity of cross examination was given to the assessee. Moreover, the revenue has not doubted about the sales. He submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of exports. The sales are duly reflected and accepted by the concerned authorities. Therefore, he submitted that when sales have been duly accepted, automatic consequence would be that the purchases of the assessee are also accepted. He has taken us through the paper book where various vouchers and other evidences are placed. The ld. Counsel has also drew our attention to pages 135 & 136 of the paper book wherein an affidavit by Smt. Tara Devi Chhajjer from whom the purchases have been made, is enclosed confirming therein the sales made to the assessee.

3.3 We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Undisputed fact as arise from the records is that the AO has not rejected the books of accounts. The additions have been made solely on the basis of the statements made by Shri Ramesh Chand Chhajer and Smt. Tara Devi Chhajer. The AO has not given opportunity of cross examination of the statements made against the assessee. It is pertinent to note that the statement was made on 11 th and 12 th October, 2010. However, in the affidavit of Smt. Tara Devi Chhajer the sales have been duly admitted. In the present case, admittedly, the revenue has not doubted the sales made by the ITA No. 121/JP/2015 DCIT vs. Beauty Tax. assessee. The only basis of making the addition is that the sellers from whom the material was purchased by the assessee have stated in their statement that no material, in fact, was sold to the assessee. However, in the affidavit, as placed in the paper book, the sellers have admitted the fact that they had sold the material. The revenue has not placed any other material suggesting that the claim as made by the assessee is bogus and not tenable in the eyes of law. At one hand the revenue has accepted the sales and such sales have also been reported to other authorities since the assessee firm had exported the goods as a 100% Export Oriented Unit. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere in the finding of fact as arrived by the ld. CIT (A). The ground raised in this appeal is dismissed. It is also noteworthy that the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessees own case pertaining to A.Y. 2008-09 in ITA 168/JP/2012 has decided the issue of purchases from these two parties in favour of the assessee. In the light of above, ground raised in this appeal is deleted.

4. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13/06/2016. Sd/- Sd/- foe flag ;kno ( dqy Hkkjr) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) ( KUL BHART ) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Jaipur Dated:- 13/06/2016. Das/ ITA No. 121/JP/2015 DCIT vs. Beauty Tax. vknsk dh izfrfyfi vxzsf"kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:

1. The Appellant- The DCIT, Circle-2, Jaipur.

2. The Respondent- M/s. BeautyTax, Jaipur.

3. The CIT(A).

4. The CIT,

5. The DR, ITAT, Jaipur

6. Guard File (ITA No. 121/JP/2015) vknskkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@ Assistant. Registrar