Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2010 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (12) TMI 1201 - ITAT AHMEDABADEstimation of income - Bogus purchases - Whether purchases are genuine even though backed by defective bills? - assessee failed to produce seller in order to substantiate his claim - onus of burden to prove regarding the genuineness of purchases - HELD THAT:- The assessee did not make any effort to controvert the finding recorded by the DDIT (Investigation) and it made no efforts to produce the seller parties on the other hand it claimed that it is not his responsibility to produce the seller. It is a settled law that onus is on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the purchase. The assessee has produced various evidence with regard to the receipt of the goods by it, i.e. stock register, receipt of weigh-bridge for weighment of goods purchased by the assessee, octroi receipt for the payment of octroi duty etc. After considering the entire material, it is oopined that the assessee did not purchase the goods from the parties mentioned in the sales bill. At the same time, it did purchase the goods from some other suppliers, may be without bill. Therefore, purchase rate as mentioned in the alleged sales bill cannot be accepted. Any person indulging in the practice of purchasing goods from the grey market and obtaining bogus bills of some other parties, would do so for getting some benefit. But what would be the magnitude of the benefit would depend upon facts of each case. In the case of VIJAY PROTEINS LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER [1996 (1) TMI 144 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C], ITAT held that such benefit to be 25% and therefore sustained the disallowance for bogus purchase at 25%. In the case of INCOME TAX OFFICER. VERSUS SUNSTEEL. [2004 (6) TMI 236 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B], the ITAT deemed it fit to sustain the disallowance for a lumpsum amount of ₹ 50,000/- - However, in the case of Shri Anubhai Shivlal, the ITAT has considered both the decisions in the case of Vijay Proteins and Sunsteel and thereafter sustained the disallowance at 12.5%. Thus, it would meet ends of justice, if the disallowance is sustained at 12.5% of the purchase from these two parties. The Assessing Officer is directed to work out the disallowance accordingly - the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed.
|