TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of CIT(A)-V, Pune, dated 17.05.2013 relating to assessment year 2009-10 against order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the lower authorities erred in making the addition of alleged bogus purchase of sum of ₹ 1,45,50,189/- by disregarding appellant s contention in this regard. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the lower authorities erred in treating the genuine suppliers as non genuine merely by presuming certain facts and for frivolous reasons and by disregarding entire record produced by the assessee in this regard. The appellant craves leave, add, alter, modify, delete, above ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing, in the interest of natural justice. 3. The issue raised in the present appeal is against the addition made on account of bogus purchases to the tune of ₹ 1,45,50,189/-. 4. Briefly, in the facts of the present case, the assessee, a partnership firm was carrying on the business of electrical works contract and re- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s issued to M/s. Steel Craft were not replied to. The Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings periodically communicated the response of two creditors to the representatives of the assessee. Vide order sheet entry dated 22.11.2011 , the Assessing Officer pointed out that M/s. S.G. Enterprises and M/s. Steel Craft appear to be bogus concerns or the bills supplied by them were fake insofar as no goods have been supplied as per the bills. The striking similarities of the bills were brought to the notice of the assessee and it was pointed out that the payments were made much later in financial year 2010-11. The assessee was show caused as to why the said purchases from the said two concerns should not be taken as fake to inflate the purchases. Further, vide order sheet entry dated 25.11.2011 , the Assessing Officer intimated the assessee that the notices under section 133(6) of the Act and the Summons under section 131 of the Act were returned undelivered in respect of M/s. S.G. Enterprises and in respect of M/s. Steel Craft, no response was received. Further, in order to verify the genuineness of the two suppliers field visit was made by the Assessing Officer and in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellate order, noted that though the Assessing Officer tried to gather information in respect of two creditors shown by the assessee, but in reply the assessee merely filed the confirmation in respect of M/s. S.G. Enterprises, while no confirmation was filed in respect of M/s. Steel Craft. In view of the findings of the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) observed that there was heavy onus placed upon the assessee to explain its position to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer by way of producing parties as well as establishing the genuineness of the transactions, which had not been done. In reply, the claim of the assessee was that both the parties were having TAN numbers and they had filed e-returns and therefore the Assessing Officer could have very well verified the genuineness of the parties from the information available on public domain. The CIT(A) in this regard observed that in view of the fact that once the Assessing Officer had made his findings known to the assessee, it was incumbent upon the assessee to discharge his onus, which had not been done in the case. In any case, having TAN, PAN or having filed return of income electronically, does not ipso facto prove the ge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee further submitted that the aforesaid addition was made by the Assessing Officer without rejection of books of account. Further, reliance was placed upon the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. (2013) 35 taxmann.com 384 (Bom), Hon ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. M.K. Brothers (1987) TAXMANN 547 (Guj) and Hon ble Bombay High Court in Babulal C. Borana Vs. Third ITO (2005) 144 TAXMAN 674 (Bom). 9. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue in turn relying on the findings of Assessing Officer pointed out that the notices / Summons issued to the said parties were returned and there was huge credit balance outstanding, which was repaid after gap of one financial year. Even the Assessing Officer went to the premises of the said creditors, but none were found at the respective addresses nor their whereabouts were known. In respect of reliance placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. (supra), the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue pointed out that the facts of the case were distinct, wherein before the Hon ble High Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the total amounts, which are placed on record. The assessee has also furnished details of the purchases made by it from different concerns totaling ₹ 2,42,25,393/-. The Assessing Officer has accepted the purchases made by the assessee from all the concerns except from M/s. S.G. Enterprises and M/s. Steel Craft. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had sought information under section 133(6) of the Act from the said parties and had also issued Summons to them under section 131 of the Act. However, in response, no information or no reply was filed by the said concerns. The notices / Summons to M/s. S.G. Enterprises were returned back. However, Summons was delivered to M/s. Steel Craft, but again no reply from the said concern was received. The Assessing Officer asked to the assessee to produce the said parties and also to furnish complete evidence in this regard. The assessee had produced the bills in respect of the said parties. However, the Assessing Officer noted that font size of the bills issued by both the concerns were identical and could not be relied upon. The main objection of the Assessing Officer in this regard was that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the respective parties mentioned on the bills. The report of the Assessing Officer in this regard was that despite enquiries, the said two addresses could not be found at that addresses nor any person admitted to have dealt with the said concerns. Admittedly, there are certain evidences against the assessee. However, there are other evidences filed by the assessee, which very clearly establishes the existence of the said concerns. The first and foremost is the PAN number issued to the two concerns, which is the evidence of Department itself. Secondly, the assessee has furnished complete invoices and the delivery challans and also the mode of payment of the consideration due to the said parties. Though the said payments were made after delayed period, but there were reasons behind it that the payments were not released to the assessee in respect of the said sub-contract and hence, the delay in making the payments to the said concerns. However, the said payments were made before date of assessment order, which was passed on 16.12.2011. Further, the assessee during the course of hearing has tried to reconcile the details of works contract supplied party-wise vis- -vis consumption o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
