Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

ACIT – 25 (3) Versus Shri Vishal P. Mehta

2016 (10) TMI 890 - ITAT MUMBAI

Bogus purchases - information obtained from the Sales Tax Department relied upon - Held that:- The assessee itself had filed conformations for purchases from two of the three parties, copies of purchase bills, copies of bank account statements to show payment for the same were through banking channels, copies of stock register to show that the material from these parties had been received, etc. to establish the genuineness of these purchases. It is a fact on record that the AO has not doubted th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on or the fact that these parties did not respond to notice under section 133(6) of the Act would not suffice to treat the purchases as bogus and make the addition. If the AO doubted the genuineness of this said purchases, it was incumbent upon him to cause further inquiries in the matter to ascertain the genuineness or otherwise of the transactions. Without causing any further enquires in respect of the said purchases, the AO cannot make the addition under section 69C of the Act by merely relyi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

kanth Khandelwal and Ms. Bhumika Vora ORDER Per Jason P. Boaz, A.M. This appeal by Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-35, Mumbai dated 09.05.2013 for A.Y. 2010-11. 2. The facts of the case, briefly, are as under: - 2.1 The assessee, Prop. Ispat Steel Supplies engaged in the business of trading in iron and steel sheets, filed its return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 on 24.09.2010 declaring total income of ₹ 52,93,,655/-. On the basis of information from the Sales Tax Departmen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

17,686/- 2 M/s. Rushabh Enterprises ₹ 58,23,655/- 3 M/s. Shree Traders ₹ 44,69,575/- 4 M/s. Simandhar Trading Corporation ₹ 1,09,53,073/- 5 M/s. Swastik Enterprises ₹ 17,23,304/- Total ₹ 3,75,87,293/- 2.2 To ascertain the genuineness of such purchases (supra) the AO issued notice to the assessee to show cause as to why the aforesaid purchases amounting to ₹ 3,75,87,293/- should not be treated as unexplained expenditure. In reply thereto, the assessee furnished .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

challans; that the assessee was not able to produce the three parties from whom alleged purchases were made before him for verification and placed reliance on the statement on oath and affidavit of one Rajendra Dodhiwala (proprietor of M/s. Rushabh Enterprises) given before Sales Tax authorities. In this view of the matter, the AO treated the purchases made from these three parties (supra) amounting to ₹ 3,75,87,293/- as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act and the assessm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s copies of purchase bills, copies of bank statements to show that payments to these parties for the said purchases have been made by account payee cheques, copies of stock register to show that the goods were received from these parties. It was submitted that the sales effected in respect of these purchases have not been doubted or questioned by the AO and therefore the purchases made by the assessee could not be held to be bogus, as without purchases the assessee could not have effected sales. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rein and in respect of which no opportunity for cross examination of that party were afforded to the assessee. The learned CIT(A) observed that the assessee had submitted the above referred documentary evidences before the AO and also in appellate proceedings before him to prove that purchases made from the above referred three parties were genuine. No material was brought on record by the AO to establish that the payments made for purchases to the above three parties were received back in cash .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t. Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (Bom) deleted the addition of ₹ 3,75,87,293/- made by the AO under section 69C of the Act vide the impugned order dated 09.05.2013. 4.1 Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A)-35, Mumbai dated 09.05.2013 for A.Y. 2010-11, Revenue has preferred this appeal raising the following grounds: - (i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 3,75,87,293/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nvolved in the appellant's case are different from the facts of the above case law. (iv) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in not appreciating the fact that the notices under 133(6) 'Issued to the parties from whom alleged bills were received were returned undelivered by the postal authorities. (v) The appellant prays that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside that of the AO be restored. (vi) The appellant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sel for the assessee strongly supported the impugned order of the learned CIT(A), deleting the additions on account of bogus purchases of ₹ 3,75,87,293/- made by the AO under section 69C of the Act. It was submitted that, the assessee to prove the genuineness of purchase transactions had produced material evidence in the form of purchase bills issued by these parties, copies of bank statements to establish that the said purchases were made through banking channels, copies of stock register .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s name was not mentioned. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that on identical facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and the Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal had deleted such additions made under section 69C of the Act in, inter alia, the following cases: - (i) CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (372 ITR 619) (Bom); (ii) Hiralal Chunilal Jain vs. ITO (ITA NO. 4547/Mum.2014 dated 01.01.2016; (iii) Imperial Imp & Exp (ITA No. 5427/Mum/2015 dated 18.0 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on 133(6) of the Act to the said three parties from whom purchases were made, which were returned unserved. As the assessee failed to produce the said parties, the AO primarily relying on the information obtained from the Sales Tax Department and the statement of an unconnected third party, Shri Rajendra Dodhiwala (Prof. Rushabh Enterprises ) held the said purchases to be bogus. While it may be true that the said three parties did not appear before the AO, for whatever reason, the fact remains t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

responding purchases being effected, the assessee would not have made sales. 4.4.2 In our view, the AO has not brought on record any material evidence to conclusively prove that the purchases are bogus. Mere reliance by the AO on information obtained from the Sales Tax Department or the statement of a third party before the Sales Tax Department, without affording the assessee adequate opportunity to cross examine that person or the fact that these parties did not respond to notice under section .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version