TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short the Act‟). 2. Both the appeals relating to the same assessee on similar issue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience 3. The assessee in ITA 1641/PUN/ 2016 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1) The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of ₹ 6,07,973/- out of the total disallowance of ₹ 24,31,891/- made by the A.O. in respect of purchase made from seven alleged hawala parties on the basis of information obtained from Maharastra Sales Tax Dept. 2) The Learned CIT(A) erred in holding that 25% of the purchases made by the assessee from the above parties were to be disallowed without appreciating that no disallowance was warranted on facts of the case. 3) The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that a) The entire purchases made by the assessee from the above party were supported by purchase invoices and detailed stock statement and the transportation/octroi receipts were also furnished in respect of some purchases and hence, there was no reason to doubt the genuineness of the said purchases. b) The payments to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 6. None was present on behalf of the Revenue when the matter was called and it is proceeded to decide the present appeal after hearing the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee since the issue raised in the present appeal is squarely covered. 7. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the Assessing Officer had received information from the Sales Tax Department that certain dealers had made bogus sales and had not deposited VAT against the said sales. The statements of some of bogus dealers were recorded. The Sales Tax Department also issued list of purchasers who had made the said purchases from the said dealers. The assessee was one such purchaser of goods allegedly from the bogus dealers. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings show caused the assessee as to why the purchases made from the hawala parties being bogus transactions should not be added in the hands of assessee. The assessee explained that against the said purchases, the payments have been made through banking channel and there is no merit in relying on the statements of said persons without giving an opportunity to cross-examine. The assessee also filed the trail of goods and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee in reply, claims that it had submitted purchase bills, consequent sale bills, weighbridge receipts and transportation receipts in order to establish that the transaction of purchases was genuine. The assessee further claims that the payments against these purchases were made through banking channel and the copy of bank statement was furnished in this regard. The assessee further claims that no case has been made by the Assessing Officer against the said payments made by the assessee to the said persons that cash had been withdrawn and handed over to the assessee. Another aspect which the assessee points out is that when he came to know that the VAT collected by the said dealers has not been deposited with the Sales Tax Department, he voluntarily revised his return under MVAT Act by withdrawing the set off of claim in the earlier return and paid the taxes with interest. Another exercise carried out by the assessee with regard to purchases and sales was that the same quantity of goods received were sold to their customers, wherein the quantity of goods purchased from so-called hawala dealers tallied with the supplies made by the assessee to its customers. The transportation e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al is shown at ₹ 31,98,665/-. Further, the assessee claims in the statement of facts that the Assessing Officer had not supplied any evidence in respect of purchases of ₹ 13,18,943/- to prove that the same were non-genuine. It is further stated that in respect of remaining purchases of ₹ 18,79,722/-, the Assessing Officer has relied on statements of four suppliers, whose bills were supplied to the Tribunal. In the Paper Book, the assessee has filed the copies of statements of three parties at pages 106 to 122 but in the statement of facts, the assessee admits to have received the statement of four suppliers. Before the CIT(A) also, the claim of assessee was that no statements or evidence in respect of impugned purchases to the extent of ₹ 14,32,856/- has been provided. This aspect came to the knowledge of Tribunal only while deciding the present appeal and in view thereof, the matter needs to be set aside to the file of Assessing Officer for verifying the copies of statements supplied to the assessee and thus, the total amount of purchases in this regard. In case the basic documents are not available with the Assessing Officer, then merely on the basis of al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer has noted the payments in respect of alleged bogus purchases were outstanding even as on the date of completion of assessment. Further, the assessee was not able to furnish any evidence relating to transportation of goods. Further, in the case of Mukeshkumar Pushkaraj Mehta Vs. ITO (supra), the assessee himself admitted before the Assessing Officer that the purchases made from the impugned hawala dealers was treated as bogus and added to its income. In this regard, there was no question of granting opportunity to cross-examine and the plea of assessee regarding genuineness of sales was not made before the Assessing Officer and further, no evidence in the form of delivery challans furnished by the assessee and hence, the purchases were added in the hands of assessee. 13. The facts of the present case as pointed out in the paras hereinabove are at slight variance. The first aspect was the said parties are hawala dealers and the assessee has made purchases from such hawala dealers, who though collected VAT but had not deposited in the Government Treasury, is common in respect of the cases. However, in the present case before the Tribunal, the assessee claims that it had made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
