Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2024 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 931 - MADRAS HIGH COURTAssessment u/s 144B - Disallowance of commission paid to the Foreign Company and Local Agents/Parties and expenses incurred by the petitioner on account of purchase of bullion - HELD THAT:- The petitioner appears to be the company which was incorporated only in the year 2019. The petitioner had filed return of Income u/s 139 on 15.03.2022. After the return was filed, the petitioner was called upon to furnish the details of the purchases made by the petitioner from various dealers particularly three dealers mentioned above. There is a huge purchase quantum of bullion/ jewellery from there sellers. The petitioner was called upon to furnish the details of purchase from these sellers. M/s.Surana Corporation Limited was under liquidation and has apparently sold jewellery to the petitioner on 20.07.2020 pursuant to an auction notice dated 12.07.2020 conducted by the Company Secretary appointed as Insolvency Resolution Professional who was later appointed as the liquidator of the said Company by the National Company Law Tribunal (in short, NCLT), Chennai, by its order dated 25.10.2019. As noticed that the petitioner has attached sample invoice issued by the Company Secretary in Practice and Insolvency Professional who was appointed as the liquidator of the said company. However, before this Court the petitioner has filed copies of invoice for a sum of Rs.127,35,78,406/-. There is no clarity on the same. The explanation of the petitioner has not been accepted by the AO. Although, during the period dispute, the movement of jewellery items including bullion are not required to accompany e-way bill in terms of Rule 138 (4)(a) of the GST Rule 2017, as amended by Notification No.12/2018 Central Tax with effect from 01.04.2018, GST Returns of the supplier and GST Returns of the petitioner would have registered the transaction of gold, the petitioner ought to have filed the GST Returns in Form GST 2A before the respondent. These documents have not been furnished by the petitioner. Also the other issues regarding payment of commission to both Indian and Foreign agents have not been properly explained by the petitioner. There are several dispute question of facts who do not call for adjudication in a summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, there are no valid grounds to interfere with the impugned assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r/w 144B. Decided against assessee.
|